In many ways, I often think the 'peak' of high culture (not only in the Western, but other cultures) was actually reached in places like Persia, China, even the Byzantine Empire or Rome...where the sense of commarade, honour, decorum was well-developed.

It's seems, in many ways, we've 'devolved' to the culture we are today. For example, we've all becoming money, hungry and greedy (instead of 'living honourably' we want to be living in wealth), there is less respect, appreciation of the classical arts.etc, kids are rude to their parents (lol, okay maybe they've always been)...there's just a sense of the primative lurking beneath our 'techno-culture.' Conversation, in many ways has become more basic, and our clothes less elaborate (and more 'practical') than say, the Victorian era.

Not saying it's all necessarily a good thing, but does anyone have an opinion on the matter?

In many ways, I often think the 'peak' of high culture (not only in the Western, but other cultures) was actually reached in places like Persia, China, even the Byzantine Empire or Rome...where the sense of commarade, honour, decorum was well-developed.

It's seems, in many ways, we've 'devolved' to the culture we are today. For example, we've all becoming money, hungry and greedy (instead of 'living honourably' we want to be living in wealth), there is less respect, appreciation of the classical arts.etc, kids are rude to their parents (lol, okay maybe they've always been)...there's just a sense of the primative lurking beneath our 'techno-culture.' Conversation, in many ways has become more basic, and our clothes less elaborate (and more 'practical') than say, the Victorian era.

Not saying it's all necessarily a good thing, but does anyone have an opinion on the matter?


It would all depend on where your ancestors were from and what economic class they were in.  The mythical sense of culture, as opposed to the reality of the times, can be deceiving.

A lot of that was only for the upper class.  The lower classes back then were even more uncultured than they are today, what with most of them not being able to read and stuff.  The upper class was definitely much more cultured back then, but the lower classes were far more uncultured back in the day.  While the upper class was wearing elaborate clothing and admiring art and music, the lower classes were living in shoddy houses and, in some cases, just plain old mud huts.  The whole view of the past being more cultured only applies to the upper class.  Of course, this creates the illusion that the whole time period was more cultured as history focuses on the upper class far more than the lower class.

I think if Paris Hilton was transported back to the Middle Ages, the people would mistake her for a tramp (oh wait, she already IS a tramp). Ah, there are some advantages to a highly classicist, moralistic society...

Realistically, probably not. Life is a bitch, so people are always going to think they're living on the edge.  Remember that in ancient Rome, they had gladiator tournaments.

I agree with what has been said here. We are seeing the "cream" of the past. Often this culture was based on the sweat and blood of the common labor who probably wasn't even allowed to enjoy this culture themselves. And even in more modern times, modern times will never be good enough to face the past in music, movies, ect because all of today is being compared to only the best of the past 50 years.  

Probably not. I mean, all that culture was only for the rich.

Probably not. I mean, all that culture was only for the rich.


Yes, in most cases this was the case. I guess things haven't really changed since...

Yes, in most cases this was the case. I guess things haven't really changed since...


Yeah, and how many of us were rich in the past, or why would we be in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, etc. (no offense to any Europeans here)?

Yeah, and how many of us were rich in the past, or why would we be in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, etc. (no offense to any Europeans here)?


Sorry I don't quite understand your question.  ???

Sorry I don't quite understand your question.  ???


If we were rich, we wouldn't have left our original places of origin for countries like the US, Canada, Australia, etc.

If we were rich, we wouldn't have left our original places of origin for countries like the US, Canada, Australia, etc.


Would we? What about factors such as climate, scenery, open space, opportunity...it wasn't just poor people who emigrated from their countries of origin.

Would we? What about factors such as climate, scenery, open space, opportunity...it wasn't just poor people who emigrated from their countries of origin.


Most people immigrated to the U.S. for economic reasons, though. People left Britain for the economic opportunities and to own their own farms, Germany for similar reasons, Italy and E. Europe because of agricultural change and poverty, Jews because of oppression, Hispanics because of political corruption, Chinese for economic opportunity and freedom, etc.

Most people immigrated to the U.S. for economic reasons, though. People left Britain for the economic opportunities and to own their own farms, Germany for similar reasons, Italy and E. Europe because of agricultural change and poverty, Jews because of oppression, Hispanics because of political corruption, Chinese for economic opportunity and freedom, etc.


Climate is probably the main reason for many UK residents to migrate down here. Some of them are quite wealthy, but they prefer the warmer climate, sunshine.etc. A bit like inter-state immigrant from Victoria to Queensland, or in the US to the West and the 'Sunbelt.'

Climate is probably the main reason for many UK residents to migrate down here. Some of them are quite wealthy, but they prefer the warmer climate, sunshine.etc. A bit like inter-state immigrant from Victoria to Queensland, or in the US to the West and the 'Sunbelt.'


Also, the economy tends to grow more quickly in warmer areas. That's the main reason why people immigrated from the Great Plains to Southern California in the 1920s-1950s period, and started migrating to states like Arizona, Nevada, etc. in the 1970s.

Also, the economy tends to grow more quickly in warmer areas. That's the main reason why people immigrated from the Great Plains to Southern California in the 1920s-1950s period, and started migrating to states like Arizona, Nevada, etc. in the 1970s.


If people have a choice they generally prefer to live in mild, sunny areas, but in America throughout the 19th century to the 1960s the main areas of economic growth were the midwest and north-east. This trend reversed after Hollywood, the mass expansion of transport systems.etc. I think the statement might only apply to certain kinds of agricultural development/tourism, but in all other respects climate (as long as it is temperate) affects climate only to the extent the temperatures are equatable and conducive to human habitation and agriculture. In Australia, the main centres of population growth was previously in the cooler SE states but it's now shifting to the North due to tourism, trans-migration of population, these sort of issues.

If people have a choice they generally prefer to live in mild, sunny areas, but in America throughout the 19th century to the 1960s the main areas of economic growth were the midwest and north-east. This trend reversed after Hollywood, the mass expansion of transport systems.etc. I think the statement might only apply to certain kinds of agricultural development/tourism, but in all other respects climate (as long as it is temperate) affects climate only to the extent the temperatures are equatable and conducive to human habitation and agriculture. In Australia, the main centres of population growth was previously in the cooler SE states but it's now shifting to the North due to tourism, trans-migration of population, these sort of issues.


I also think part of it is the "pioneer" spirit, as to why people left the Great Plains. Most of the people themselves who left for Southern California were descendents of German and eastern pioneers who came west in the late 19th century, whereas Easterners like myself, both due to the mountainous geography and our own orientation, are less likely to leave.

I also think part of it is the "pioneer" spirit, as to why people left the Great Plains. Most of the people themselves who left for Southern California were descendents of German and eastern pioneers who came west in the late 19th century, whereas Easterners like myself, both due to the mountainous geography and our own orientation, are less likely to leave.


Yeah, especially New Yorkers, who seem to live in a world of their own. New York itself is a fascinating patchwork of different ethnicies, who seem to intermingle and interact in fascinating ways.

Yeah, especially New Yorkers, who seem to live in a world of their own. New York itself is a fascinating patchwork of different ethnicies, who seem to intermingle and interact in fascinating ways.


Yeah, we're composed of Italian, Jewish, African-American, Irish, WASP, Dutch, Chinese, Korean, West Indian, Asian Indian, Puerto Rican, and Dominican influences primarily. But we also have massive Cuban, Polish, Russian, Mexican and Central American, Peruvian, Colombian, Subsaharan African, Greek, Portuguese, Filipino, Mideastern, Turkish influences.

In many ways, I often think the 'peak' of high culture (not only in the Western, but other cultures) was actually reached in places like Persia, China, even the Byzantine Empire or Rome...where the sense of commarade, honour, decorum was well-developed.


I think you need to study history a bit more. Whilst on the one hand all of these places and era's had great thinkers and inventors on the whole life was very, very brutal especially for the lower ranks !

If we were rich, we wouldn't have left our original places of origin for countries like the US, Canada, Australia, etc.
Umm also some people had no choice ! Look at all the people who were deported from the U.K to Australia, New Zealand, America and Canada, or promised fabulous new lives when all they ended up with was a life of hardship and toil. Oh and then there's slavery.......

My ancestors were blood thirsty, monk-killing, village-burning Vikings.

So, no.

I also think part of it is the "pioneer" spirit, as to why people left the Great Plains. Most of the people themselves who left for Southern California were descendents of German and eastern pioneers who came west in the late 19th century, whereas Easterners like myself, both due to the mountainous geography and our own orientation, are less likely to leave.


exactly, there is no frontier left to explore. When easterners go west, it's usually to California or Vegas(I'm exluding the upper mid west) but it's also quite shocking at how much sheer nothingness is in the middle of the country. If you're ever driving through parts of Kentucky, Missouri, or Kansas...there's just nothing there. It's empty.

New York seems to be its own country...but I believe its sphere of influence is eroding. You don't have to travel far outside the city to find completely different lifestyles and people who are not "New Yorkers" despite being so close to and sometimes working in the city. I feel the jersey suburbs were once connected to NY at the hip, now NJ seems to have its own "feel" to it, a separate identity not connected to the city.

Compare it to New England, you have Boston. But Bostons sphere of influence extends all the way to the tip of Maine, west into Vermont and NH, and south into Connecticut. They all seem to be the same type of Bostonites or New Englanders, however you want to call them. But travel to parts of Passaic and Morris county...and these are not New Yorkers.

exactly, there is no frontier left to explore. When easterners go west, it's usually to California or Vegas(I'm exluding the upper mid west) but it's also quite shocking at how much sheer nothingness is in the middle of the country. If you're ever driving through parts of Kentucky, Missouri, or Kansas...there's just nothing there. It's empty.

New York seems to be its own country...but I believe its sphere of influence is eroding. You don't have to travel far outside the city to find completely different lifestyles and people who are not "New Yorkers" despite being so close to and sometimes working in the city. I feel the jersey suburbs were once connected to NY at the hip, now NJ seems to have its own "feel" to it, a separate identity not connected to the city.

Compare it to New England, you have Boston. But Bostons sphere of influence extends all the way to the tip of Maine, west into Vermont and NH, and south into Connecticut. They all seem to be the same type of Bostonites or New Englanders, however you want to call them. But travel to parts of Passaic and Morris county...and these are not New Yorkers.



Well actually there's a "switchback" migration of people from California to other states like Arizona and Illinois. Mainly it's to get away from all the overcrowding, crime, polution, and natural disasters that has seemed to plaque the state for the past couple decades. I guess Arizona and Nevada is for those who don't want to leave the sunny southwest while states like Illinois is for some atempt to return to Mayberry without completely losing all the benifits of a metropolitian society.

I agree, acculturation was and is subject to economic class.

Literacy rates are three or four times higher than they were a couple of hundred years ago. However, what the powers that be attack is "critical thinking skills." This is the essence of "dumbing down."  The two biggest culprits in America:
a. The corporate advertising and public relations industries.
b. Christian fundamentalism.

I would then add:
c. The government setting its social and economic priorities in concert with A and B.

And not all reading is created equal--
Read Noam Chomsky = Learn something.
Read Dr. Phil = Learn nothing.

My ancestors were blood thirsty, monk-killing, village-burning Vikings.

So, no.


That's just a negative stereotype...sure they did a lot of looting.etc, but the Vikings also had a surprisingly sophisticated culture.

That's just a negative stereotype...sure they did a lot of looting.etc, but the Vikings also had a surprisingly sophisticated culture.


very true.  it's us that have fallen down the chain of civilization. we are coming to whre we are running out ofthings ot invent.
we will be stifled by a lack of creativity soon.
http://www.viking-folklore.com/viking-stories-image/viking-remember.jpg

very true.  it's us that have fallen down the chain of civilization. we are coming to whre we are running out ofthings ot invent.
we will be stifled by a lack of creativity soon.
http://www.viking-folklore.com/viking-stories-image/viking-remember.jpg

There has been no anthropological evidence that Vikings wore helmets wtih horns. That's the province of B-movies and Gary Larson cartoons! And for those want to fob off the Viking savagery onto Pagans, remember the noridic peoples began converting to Christianity in the 10th century. Erik the Red was a Christian.
One place there is a gross misrepresentation is in the anti-Christian white surpremicist groups around Scandinavia. At the height of "Viking" culture, Thor was long gone and Jesus was in!

I think we are definitely less cultured in some ways, and more cultured in others. With any technologically advanced society, there are set backs and advantages.Tne fact that we're so absorbed in technology, makes us more isolated in a lot of ways, where as our ancestors had to barter and trade with others, and as a result , had the opportunity to communicate with so many people, they had the opportunity to learn new languauges more frequently and those kinds of things. Now, think about it, how much can one say they really know about other cultures or people outside of their own community. In a lot of ways this era is less civilized than earlier ones.

There has been no anthropological evidence that Vikings wore helmets wtih horns. That's the province of B-movies and Gary Larson cartoons! And for those want to fob off the Viking savagery onto Pagans, remember the noridic peoples began converting to Christianity in the 10th century. Erik the Red was a Christian.
One place there is a gross misrepresentation is in the anti-Christian white surpremicist groups around Scandinavia. At the height of "Viking" culture, Thor was long gone and Jesus was in!

ok.
i thought it was a nice picture frame, really.