| 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 |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2009-07-22 18:34 |
| #8 |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-07-22 15:07 |
| #7 |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-07-22 14:31 |
| #6 |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-07-22 13:39 |
| #5 |
| Posted by: Matt 2009-07-22 12:46 |
| #4 |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-07-22 11:11 |
| #3 |
| Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-07-22 10:45 |
| #2 |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-07-22 10:13 |
| #1 |
| Posted by: Richard Aubrey 2009-07-22 06:45 |