Post by Bartonite on Dec 1, 2019 13:07:08 GMT
This is from Paul Colinvaux's book (paperback edition), 'The Fates of Nations', published in 1980. It concludes his synopsis' in 'Chapter 8 ] The Struggle for Europe', of how various countries/states 'evolved', according to his 'ecological hypothesis', specifically with England's entry. Colinvaux died on February 28th, 1916, so he missed everything following the June referendum which now confounds his optimism about Europe 'keeping the precious diversity that all may share it', but without aggressive war. At least he was right to predict that it would only be a 'short step into the future', because population increases outpace every enterprise, even the British Empire.
(please point out any typos, apart from the American spellings)
'Europe never fell before military conquest; its weapons, its learning, and its neighbours saw to that. But Europe is coming very close to being a single political entity all the same. The superstate, which is emerging after all the aggressions failed, is called not an 'empire' but a 'common market'.
Up to this final act of union the pattern of change and war in Europe
193
has, in fact, followed very closely the predictions of the ecological hypothesis, though on a grander scale than in any other civilization. But the scale has been a product of European technique and learning, just like the wars. The historic pattern itself has been familiar enough.In each part of Europe niches have changed, as many people learned new techniques and began to live better. Always the breeding strategy responded to produce more people. Except in the last century, when fossil-fuel technology so increased total niche-space that broad niches have spread down the social pyramid, the absolute numbers of poor people increased. Growing aspirations and numbers of the better-off in different European nations have always been accompanied by trade and colonial expansion, as is to be expected if one causes the other.
All the European states have undertaken aggressive wars against distant peoples not equipped with weapons of the European West, and have taken, settled and used the land they took by force. All the European states have attempted aggressions against the members of their own polity, and always at the times when the aggressors were comparatively wealthy and had a high standard of living. These wars were most persistent and vigorous in the last and wealthiest century, when absolute poverty was in decline. And now, at last, the European nations are moving towards unity with a central government quite as predicted by the ecological hypothesis, but without the complete military conquest that usually imposes the unity. Buy the way to unity was probably prepared by the tries for military dominance all the same.
Central government, bigness of scale, and fusion of national identity into a large communal state are themselves ways of offering fresh opportunities to traders, governors and the aspiring members of societies generally. As long as the new supergovernment is not hostile to your own personal interests it is almost certain to bring more opportunities to you and yours. There will be more opportunities for trae, more niche dimensions in travel, a greater varieties of resources on which to draw, and more military security too, within an amalgam of state. This is why an imperial conqueror, if not an expropriating alien, can be accepted. Europe never had a conqueror, but ancient Greece did, and the Greek example is instructive.When Philip of Macedon ended the centuries of Greek civil war with his superphalanx, the wars really did end.The people of all the Greek city-states accepted the new system of things, and they were soon able to rejoice in Alexander's conquests in their name, and to take grateful advantage of the opportunities his conquests gave. It was Philip rather than any other soldier, who imposed unity, because he it was who invented the winning technique.But it seems likely that any of the would-be conquerors, from Athens,
194
Sparta or Thebes, would have done as well had they managed the necessary victories. It was, in fact, possible for all the Greek city-states to share in the advantages of Greek union, whatever the name of the soldier who imposed it.
In Europe no soldier managed to impose union. Furthermore, the more advanced technology of Europe had let a society develop with much wider individual liberties than most of the Greeks could ever know, and the idea of soldierly government had been resisted strenuously by Europeans. But this had not obscured the advantages that could come to the better-living individuals in the merging of the nation-states. Both numbers and aspirations have grown rapidly, meaning that more carrying capacity must be found.There are more broad niches available in the superstate, and so people have found a way to build that state without the necessity for a successful conquest. The nations joined by free votes of their peoples, each vote being given not to the issue of defence or grandeur, but on economic logic; 'the market will improve my standard of living'. The Common Market is a consummation of the expansive phase of the cycle of European history, the equivalent of the old land empires of continental scale and, like them, built after much fighting.
The Common Market has even let the British in. For seven or eight hundred years British armies have fought their way into Europe with never a continental army getting back to Britain in return. in the early days the English soldiers were blatantly after the loot of European lands, as their appetites and numbers began to stretch beyond the satisfactions of their island. In later centuries it was soldiers of a united Britain fighting to prevent any European army from getting so powerful that they could interfere with Britain's martial growth through colonial expansion outside Europe. But the soldiers out of Britain always took war to some European countryside in the service of their own relentless expansion and demand. They fought down European peoples so that the British share of the world's niche-space might grow.They made a great success of it. And now the Europeans have invited the British in to share their continental land after all. This invitation came just after the British had lost the loot of their world adventures and found themselves on a small island which could not support such numbers of them living in the expansive style of the European West. The decision may even have prevented their having to think of going to war again for a living in the coming generations. Most timely.
The need for very great variety in the resources for the human niche of European peoples is now most pressing. Both the numbers and the densities of the people are very large, and the habit of living in broad niches has spread to a large part of them. All must have opportunity, variety, and choice of
195
resources if they are to believe the rhetoric about Western liberties for long. This new European of the Common Market probably offers as good a chance of meeting so many needs as any earthly polity. It has been built, not out of conformity and by force, but out of variety desperately defended. Different languages and different cultures are all intact. De Gaulle said it was, and was to be, 'Europe des Patries'. This vision speaks to keeping the precious diversity that all may share it. In variety there are compounded possibilities for free living and broad niches. Europe des Patries gives a little extra niche-space to support European hopes and breeding strategies for another short step into the future.'
(please point out any typos, apart from the American spellings)
'Europe never fell before military conquest; its weapons, its learning, and its neighbours saw to that. But Europe is coming very close to being a single political entity all the same. The superstate, which is emerging after all the aggressions failed, is called not an 'empire' but a 'common market'.
Up to this final act of union the pattern of change and war in Europe
193
has, in fact, followed very closely the predictions of the ecological hypothesis, though on a grander scale than in any other civilization. But the scale has been a product of European technique and learning, just like the wars. The historic pattern itself has been familiar enough.In each part of Europe niches have changed, as many people learned new techniques and began to live better. Always the breeding strategy responded to produce more people. Except in the last century, when fossil-fuel technology so increased total niche-space that broad niches have spread down the social pyramid, the absolute numbers of poor people increased. Growing aspirations and numbers of the better-off in different European nations have always been accompanied by trade and colonial expansion, as is to be expected if one causes the other.
All the European states have undertaken aggressive wars against distant peoples not equipped with weapons of the European West, and have taken, settled and used the land they took by force. All the European states have attempted aggressions against the members of their own polity, and always at the times when the aggressors were comparatively wealthy and had a high standard of living. These wars were most persistent and vigorous in the last and wealthiest century, when absolute poverty was in decline. And now, at last, the European nations are moving towards unity with a central government quite as predicted by the ecological hypothesis, but without the complete military conquest that usually imposes the unity. Buy the way to unity was probably prepared by the tries for military dominance all the same.
Central government, bigness of scale, and fusion of national identity into a large communal state are themselves ways of offering fresh opportunities to traders, governors and the aspiring members of societies generally. As long as the new supergovernment is not hostile to your own personal interests it is almost certain to bring more opportunities to you and yours. There will be more opportunities for trae, more niche dimensions in travel, a greater varieties of resources on which to draw, and more military security too, within an amalgam of state. This is why an imperial conqueror, if not an expropriating alien, can be accepted. Europe never had a conqueror, but ancient Greece did, and the Greek example is instructive.When Philip of Macedon ended the centuries of Greek civil war with his superphalanx, the wars really did end.The people of all the Greek city-states accepted the new system of things, and they were soon able to rejoice in Alexander's conquests in their name, and to take grateful advantage of the opportunities his conquests gave. It was Philip rather than any other soldier, who imposed unity, because he it was who invented the winning technique.But it seems likely that any of the would-be conquerors, from Athens,
194
Sparta or Thebes, would have done as well had they managed the necessary victories. It was, in fact, possible for all the Greek city-states to share in the advantages of Greek union, whatever the name of the soldier who imposed it.
In Europe no soldier managed to impose union. Furthermore, the more advanced technology of Europe had let a society develop with much wider individual liberties than most of the Greeks could ever know, and the idea of soldierly government had been resisted strenuously by Europeans. But this had not obscured the advantages that could come to the better-living individuals in the merging of the nation-states. Both numbers and aspirations have grown rapidly, meaning that more carrying capacity must be found.There are more broad niches available in the superstate, and so people have found a way to build that state without the necessity for a successful conquest. The nations joined by free votes of their peoples, each vote being given not to the issue of defence or grandeur, but on economic logic; 'the market will improve my standard of living'. The Common Market is a consummation of the expansive phase of the cycle of European history, the equivalent of the old land empires of continental scale and, like them, built after much fighting.
The Common Market has even let the British in. For seven or eight hundred years British armies have fought their way into Europe with never a continental army getting back to Britain in return. in the early days the English soldiers were blatantly after the loot of European lands, as their appetites and numbers began to stretch beyond the satisfactions of their island. In later centuries it was soldiers of a united Britain fighting to prevent any European army from getting so powerful that they could interfere with Britain's martial growth through colonial expansion outside Europe. But the soldiers out of Britain always took war to some European countryside in the service of their own relentless expansion and demand. They fought down European peoples so that the British share of the world's niche-space might grow.They made a great success of it. And now the Europeans have invited the British in to share their continental land after all. This invitation came just after the British had lost the loot of their world adventures and found themselves on a small island which could not support such numbers of them living in the expansive style of the European West. The decision may even have prevented their having to think of going to war again for a living in the coming generations. Most timely.
The need for very great variety in the resources for the human niche of European peoples is now most pressing. Both the numbers and the densities of the people are very large, and the habit of living in broad niches has spread to a large part of them. All must have opportunity, variety, and choice of
195
resources if they are to believe the rhetoric about Western liberties for long. This new European of the Common Market probably offers as good a chance of meeting so many needs as any earthly polity. It has been built, not out of conformity and by force, but out of variety desperately defended. Different languages and different cultures are all intact. De Gaulle said it was, and was to be, 'Europe des Patries'. This vision speaks to keeping the precious diversity that all may share it. In variety there are compounded possibilities for free living and broad niches. Europe des Patries gives a little extra niche-space to support European hopes and breeding strategies for another short step into the future.'