---
We'll use the context of the recently passed Fourth of July.
---
I have been reviewing European and American history, using a genealogical framework, for the past couple of years. Somehow, putting flesh on the thing can create a whole new look.
And, it seems obvious to me that we have gone astray from the ideals of the early entrants (and those across the millennial span who may have wished that things were better) . Why?
Many reasons. We'll get to that. But, the thing to look at is how to recapture some of that 'spirit' (and, politicos, you are not 'it') that was behind 1776.
Adam Smith would have loved this, it is my opinion. So, would have Samuelson.
---
What we are starting here will be a constructive viewpoint which has the intent of showing how to tame the chimera, to establish a more fair approach, and to do so without breaking the bank.
The series will be dedicated to George Edward Kimball, III (1943-2011) whom I first met 46 years ago in the central part of the U.S.A., who was continuation of a line from the early entrants to the 21st century, and who was for the 'little' people as many have said in their remembrances of him.
---
In my research, I had earlier run across a book with 'Salem Commoners' in the title and finally decided to read the thing. George's ancestor settled in Watertown, MA (later, moving to Ipswich, MA), but that is a mere stone's throw away (at least, to those of us from the wider-expanses of the western US).
Aside: in the past two years, I've been trolling the Internet's ever-growing database (thank you, Internet Archive, for instance) and collecting material related to several genealogical trees, including material related to the milieu and the times (to understand motivations, etc.). Of course, some material I read (or scanned). A lot of it is there waiting for attention.
So I opened the book (use 'Read online' for a wonderful GUI presentation). The title can give pause; is it exalting in not having any royal or aristocratic blood and more? Mind you, no one is in power, ever, without some exploitation of situations (yes, unfortunately, John Dalberg was right -- even though he knew not of situational ethics). Too, there is noone from any time who does not have something in their past that people cannot harp about (should they choose to do so).
Yet, we know that many people want to know of their royal gateways, if they have any. We didn't continue the traditions here, yet we can find these things interesting (aren't Kate and William just great, for instance? -- by the way, she has royal blood -- it took an American to do the proper research) since it is the past for a whole lot of Americans.
---
The above-mentioned book is a record of meetings that started in 1713. To put it in context, this would be about 90 years past the first group coming into the Salem area. What we see is a group of people who decided that they needed to organize efforts at maintaining the commonweal (we've mentioned that before). The attendee list consists of many stellar families.
Aside: a mere 50 years later, similar meetings had the role of 'shadow' government.
Now, one might ask in the context of the meeting, as opposed to what? Royal rule. Remember, George III stumbled here because he failed to see that 150-plus years of self-governance (despite royal overseers) led the American people to desire freedom sufficiently to risk their lives, health and wealth. You see, England had just gotten over decades of civil war. So, George III decided that he wanted to reign in those over here who had blossomed under the lack of constraint.
By the way, what were the British troops fighting for, in comparison? Oppression?
Aside: Because of the sweep of time here, we really need to look at the Crusades' influence on some modern dilemmas. Too, bottom-up (self-governance) versus top-down (aristocratic -- many, many types -- intelligence being the most insidious) is an age-old theme.
Ah, the allure of ergodics.
---
So, this is the first of a series. 'Constructive' will be looked at next time. You see, the chimera is the result of mis-used mathematics and computation, pure and simple. 'How to show this?' is the problem. Of course, we'll try to be other than PTIME in the development.
---
What is the historic-genealogical connection? Well, it'll unfold. But, Naisbitt was right in drawing parallels with our times of 400 years ago. We'll do the same drawing from a collection of individuals (including Richard Kimball) whose progeny continue to play out the 'American dream' (as it ought to be).
- 01/19/2010 -- ... Anyway, how do we get a new look at Adam Smith? We'll use US history. In particular, we're going to go back to Massachusetts Bay Colony and look at a few economic realities. We'll focus on several people, such as families of settlers, blowhards (like John White), and others, at first. Then, we'll expand it to other developments that were congruent in time. Note please, these things pre-date our friend Adam. ... Why do this? To honor Adam, for one. Also, Naisbitt, the futurist, is at it, again. His comparison of China with the U.S. two hundred years ago motivated me to look at his example's basis. Well, then we have to go back further than that (old planters). And, we expect to see that his paralleling example is not as well-founded as he may think. This look will be Economic History and Philosophy rolled into one.
Remarks
07/24/2012 -- Chompsky on the Magna Carta and our rights to Commons.
07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III).
09/15/2011 -- Henry and George.
07/28/2011 -- Cambridge non-commoners.
07/12/2011 -- Posts here evolve, but they eventually settle down. GEK III is quoted as saying that life would be better without editors. However, they do slough through a lot. Unfortunately, bloggers (assuming that the person cares) have to do that work themselves (as we all know, multitudes do not).
07/12/2011 -- Big Ben wants to ease for the fat cats, as if they will create jobs. Guy, you know that you've trashed the heart of the economy, the savers, for several years now? Answer this: do you run your household economy by debt (I already know the answer, no; somehow you are enthralled by equity's sirens)? That is, are you indentured up to your eyeballs (wait, what political pull are you trying to buildup for the future?)?
Modified: 07/24/2012
No comments:
Post a Comment