| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| 14th century European attitudes about peasants versus today |
| 2009-07-22 |
| This has been bothering me for a while. I wandered to this link randomly and it made a lot of sense. You can click through to read the whole encylopedia article, but I'm going to rephrase some of it and see if it makes sense in early 21st century America. I don't know, maybe I'm trying to shoehorn this in. Most of the revolts were an expression of those below who desired to share in the wealth, status, and well being of those more fortunate. In the end they were almost always defeated and the nobles ruled the day. A new attitude emerged in Europe, that "peasant" was a pejorative concept, it was something separate, and seen in a negative light, from those who had wealth and status. This was an entirely new social stratification from earlier times when society had been based on the three orders, those who work, those who pray, and those who fight, when being a peasant meant being next to God, just as the other orders, now peasants were seen as almost sub-human. How do liberals feel about the millions of Americans who operate cash registers? And backhoe operators? And soldiers? And truck drivers? There were five main reasons for these mass uprisings including 1) an increasing gap between the wealthy and poor, 2) declining incomes of the wealthy, 3) rising inflation and taxation, 4) the external crises of famine, plague and war, and 5) backlashes against the religious. The first reason was because the social gap between rich and poor had become more extreme. The origins of this change can be traced to the 12th century and the rise of the concept of nobility. Dress, behaviour, manners, courtesy, speech, diet, education — all became part of the noble class, making them distinct from others. By the 14th century the nobles had indeed become very different in their behaviour, appearance and values from those "beneath". Compare the iPod-wearing liberal to the normal American - dress, behavior, (lack of) manners, (lack of common) courtesy, speech, diet, twisted eduction...the reason that they affect these styles in the first place is to seperate themselves from the rest of us. The second reason was a crisis for the nobles with declining income. By 1285 inflation had become rampant (in part due to population pressures) and some nobles charged rent based on customary fixed rates, based on the Feudal system, so as the price of goods and services rose (from inflation), the income of those nobles remained stagnant (effectively dropping). To make matters worse, the nobles had become accustomed to a more luxurious lifestyle that required more money. To address this nobles illegally raised rents, cheated, stole, and sometimes resorted to outright violence to take what they wanted. Goldman-Sachs, anyone? Thirdly, presidents needed money to finance wars and resorted to devaluing currency, by cutting valuable treasury notes with less precious IOUs, which resulted in increased inflation and in the end, increased taxation. Obama's new budget. Fourth, the 14th century crisis of famine, plague and war put additional pressures on those on the bottom. The plague drastically reduced the numbers of people who were workers and producing the wealth. We don't have these...yet. Modern medicine and modern agriculture have held them off. Wonder why liberals are trying to destroy modern medicine and modern agriculture? Think about how much respect rural people have today versus fifty years ago. Finally, layered on top of this was a popular ideological view of the time that property, wealth and inequality was against the teachings of God. Or whatever liberals worship as God. The word peasant, since the 14th century (or even before), has a pejorative meaning and is not a neutral term. However, it was not always that way; peasants were once viewed as pious and seen with respect and pride. Life was hard for peasants, but life was hard for everyone. As nobles increasingly lived better quality lives, there arose a new consciousness of those on top and those on bottom, and the sense that being a peasant was not a position of equality. USA 2009 vs. USA 1959: how is the common man perceived? Anyway, I've been trying to put this "liberals detest us and regard themselves as nobility, above everyone" into words for a while now, and it just hasn't come. And it doesn't say anything about the heartless Republican plutocrats who think the same way about me as the liberals do. |
| Posted by:gromky |
| #9 As an interesting parallel to this story, consider the feudal condition of serfdom, where the serf was freeborn but was indentured to the land as a condition of tenancy/use of the land. A step up from slavery, it had restrictions and conditions that limited rights and effectively tied the serf to the land. The fealty due to the leigelord required taxes through actual cash (rare) or a percentage of the crops and other produce of the land. The standard varied, but generally approximated ONE THIRD of the years production of the land and labor. In other words, the taxed classes in America, roughly 60% of the population, and more particularly the upper 20-25% of taxpayers, are more severely taxed than serfs from the early Middle Ages! Nothing could be more proof of the frog in the pot on the stove analogy than the sad plight of the American taxpayer, whose upper end tax burden now is TWICE that of a serf, witness to the rise in taxation and size of government from 1917 to today. This level of theft by force of law is unsustainable.... it is the stuff of revolution and the collapse of public confidence in those who govern them. We have developed a ruling class in America, and they increasingly are coastal, progressive, and deaf to our National culture, character and ideals. |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2009-07-22 18:34 |
#8
| ||
| Posted by: lotp 2009-07-22 15:07 |
| #7 Award Obama the tile of HNIC. (If you don't know it, look it up) |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-07-22 14:31 |
| #6 I've begun to think the people would be better served if we just went the whole hog and used European titles.. The reason the title Caesar came into use was because the Roman culture couldn't accept reusing the older Etruscan title for king. King was an anathema to nearly all Romans. So, by events and evolution the name of Caesar would become its substitute. Just as we today have people who sit for life and are unaccountable to the people yet issue decrees that do not match the words of our own Constitution. We call them federal judges. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-07-22 13:39 |
| #5 The Constitution expressly forbids the granting of titles of nobility. That must have seemed like a good idea at the time, but with all these "czars" running around and with Congresscritters holding office for decades, I've begun to think the people would be better served if we just went the whole hog and used European titles for our lords and masters in Washington. At least the pretense would be gone and we could have some fun naming them: The Duke of Chappaquiddick The Viscountess Pelosi etc. |
| Posted by: Matt 2009-07-22 12:46 |
| #4 As Solomon said, "there is nothing new under the sun": President Obama's "science czar," Paul Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings....The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe. The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people." As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates. Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile. To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty. |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-07-22 11:11 |
| #3 The plague drastically reduced the numbers of people who were workers and producing the wealth. We don't have these...yet. Modern medicine and modern agriculture have held them off. Wait till health care is rationed and the borders controlled, reducing illegal immigration. |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-07-22 10:45 |
| #2 This distinction between the noble classes and the peasants still exists, and is what I call the "Old Europe disease". Its basis goes way back to the time of the Romans and Roman law. This remained the legal system of the rather ineffectual Holy Roman Empire until its reformation by Bonaparte as the Napoleonic law. Today it dominates international law as the French Code Civil. During the colonial period, it also migrated to central and South America and the French dominated colonies, and is today responsible for most of their endless political problems, with the wealthy upper classes and the peasantry, punctuated by the lowest order of communist rejection of that structure. It is night and day with the Common law, whose roots began with the Germanic tribes, and migrated to England and thence to America. It is inherently far more egalitarian, and at least tries to provide the same rules for the wealthy and the poor. However, they are right that the self-appointed American "elites" admire and want to embrace the Code Civil, and openly despise the American Common law based legal code. They, like their European counterparts, cannot enjoy their champagne and caviar, unless they can look out the windows of whatever palace, and see it surrounded by starving and hateful peasants. This is why major international economic conferences are held in cities where unruly mobs fighting police are guaranteed, instead of in isolated castles out in the hinterland. It is also where "Eurotrash" tourist destinations are fenced enclaves surrounded by literally starving people, like Acapulco. And it is why bandits like Chavez, who are supposedly populists, become dictators and think themselves nobility as soon as they can. Old Europe disease. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-07-22 10:13 |
| #1 Just for one comment, The Black Plague was said to have killed so many people in Europe, about a third, that the remaining folks had more land to use--which was prepared--and could command higher wages. So maybe you should rethink this. Peasant revolts were, afaik, a matter of sheer desperation but localized, since the circumstances varied locally, and communications were limited. Still, an old bit of doggerel: "When Adam dolve and Eve span, Who was then a gentleman?" The folks who recited that had something in mind. |
| Posted by: Richard Aubrey 2009-07-22 06:45 |