NationStates Jolt Archive

I was struck by a comment Intangelon made in another thread. It started me thinking about cultural (or in some cases, culturally lacking) eras. Eras like the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Industrial Age and so on. I started wondering about this era - we call it the Information Age because the internet allows us unprecedented access to information. But I notice, as does most of the rest of NS, that certain vocal segments of society, in America and elsewhere, seem to have succumbed to a form of "shock" regarding this informational influx. It's as if the informational overload is too much for them and they're retreating into a simpler, less intellectually demanding mode. In the past this retreat led to the Dark Ages.

I begin to suspect that we are at the beginning of another, religiously based, Dark Age, where knowlege and education are suspect and, therefore, to be suppressed, even destroyed.

What does NSG think? Are we at the beginniing of a fearful new Dark Age? Will we have to hide books to keep them from being burned? Will we have to hide any learning that does not support the mainstream?

A new dark age will not come due to religion and ignorance, these things are being spurned by the majority of people in the world. People who claim that the importance of education is being lost are simply incorrect, one small example would be wikipedia, now one of the most popular webpages in the world. If people really despised knowledge and education, it would have sank like a stone.

A new dark age will come because of a cataclysmic event, whether natural or man-made. We'll see in thirty or so years if this is going to happen; I doubt that we'll have a nuclear war over anything before then.

Interesting thought, but I doubt it.

Society is going through a massive change (once again), and people's animal instince resists change to some extend, some more, some less.
Parts of society are changing away from religion, which makes other parts cling to it more fiercely.

It reminds me of a book I read ages and ages ago, called "St Petri Schnee", probable best translated as St Peter's Snow.
The story is about an Austrian nobleman at the turn of the 19th/20th century, who mourns the fact that the people in his village and his workers have turned away from religion too much. He discovered a drug that reputedly was the cause of the frenzy of the crusades, and mixes it into the village well and water supply, only to find that the people turn violently Marxist instead of Catholic.

Religion and philosophyin the west these days is too fractured to unite massive amounts of people under one banner any more... not even the Islamic world finds the strength for religious unity any more.
That's why I don't really see much of a danger of society turning back into fanatical dark ages any more.

Maybe in Iran, Russia etc. Nowhere in the west for a long time.

I was struck by a comment Intangelon made in another thread. It started me thinking about cultural (or in some cases, culturally lacking) eras. Eras like the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Industrial Age and so on. I started wondering about this era - we call it the Information Age because the internet allows us unprecedented access to information. But I notice, as does most of the rest of NS, that certain vocal segments of society, in America and elsewhere, seem to have succumbed to a form of "shock" regarding this informational influx. It's as if the informational overload is too much for them and they're retreating into a simpler, less intellectually demanding mode. In the past this retreat led to the Dark Ages.

I begin to suspect that we are at the beginning of another, religiously based, Dark Age, where knowlege and education are suspect and, therefore, to be suppressed, even destroyed.

What does NSG think? Are we at the beginniing of a fearful new Dark Age? Will we have to hide books to keep them from being burned? Will we have to hide any learning that does not support the mainstream?

No, probably not. There have always been social reactionaries and always will be. What precipitated the Dark Ages was the collapse of Roman civilization. The reactionaries don't have the means, and probably don't have will, to cause such a calamity on a global scale. I suspect that most religious fundamentalists wouldn't be eager to live without the amenities of modern civilization. Recall, for example, that Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri gave an address via the internet. He is not exactly a Luddite.

I'd like to think we're not heading for an era of suspicion in information, though it does worry me the way some governments appear to think they can control dissemination of information.

Maybe in Iran, Russia etc. Nowhere in the west for a long time.
Don't really see why Iran and Russia deserve a mention. The Persians do loads of blogging and all that, the general populace doesn't fear technology, and the Russians don't seem to fear the internet or anything.
I'd like to think we're not heading for an era of suspicion in information, though it does worry me the way some governments appear to think they can control dissemination of information.
Toujours the case.

I begin to suspect that we are at the beginning of another, religiously based, Dark Age, where knowlege and education are suspect and, therefore, to be suppressed, even destroyed.

What does NSG think? Are we at the beginniing of a fearful new Dark Age? Will we have to hide books to keep them from being burned? Will we have to hide any learning that does not support the mainstream?
On the face of it it's a reasonable suspicion - the continued rise of some forms of fundamentalist religion, eschewing as they do many of the advances in knowledge that the sciences continue to provide, certainly hints that this is the way things are going in some parts of the world. Add to that the anti-intellectualism that is evident in some places and it would be foolish not to consider whether a new 'Dark Age' might be looming.

I don't believe that it will happen that way simply because, unlike in ages past, it's no longer possible to just burn the books and keep the 'peasants' in ignorance. The digital availability of information on pretty much every subject that we, as a species, have investigated is all but impossible to quash without the complicity of the whole developed world. No one country will be able to instigate the successful censorship of what we know and keep it hidden from the wider world.

I'll try to come up with a more substantive comment, but a very good book on this subject is Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason, which came out earlier in the year.

I'd like to think we're not heading for an era of suspicion in information, though it does worry me the way some governments appear to think they can control dissemination of information.

Nothing new--governments have always tried to control information. What is new is the way the Internet is making information increasingly freer, even in tightly controlled places like China.

I'll try to come up with a more substantive comment, but a very good book on this subject is Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason, which came out earlier in the year.

I suspect that every generation, people decry how stupid everyone has become. Richard Hofstadter wrote a book about American anti-intellectualism in the 1960s. Before that, H.L. Mencken was complaining about it. Maybe people are just intrinsically stupid.

I suspect that every generation, people decry how stupid everyone has become. Richard Hofstadter wrote a book about American anti-intellectualism in the 1960s. Before that, H.L. Mencken was complaining about it. Maybe people are just intrinsically stupid.

I'd say they definitely are.
We just start noticing it more, because these days, everybody can get on the telly... and they do.

Well, no. For one thing, the Dark Ages as they say never really existed. Not the way we think of them as if all knowledge stopped or what have you. Two, the early Middle Ages were not really caused by religion, there were a great many factors involved in what was going on. And three, I just don't see it happening. Luddites have been around for all time. If I may steal a bit of Pratchett, I'm sure when God said "Let there be light!" one of them said, "Why? Dark has ALWAYS been good enough for us!" and yet humanity continues to advance.

I'm pretty sure that in a few hundred years, the year 2008 would either be part of an era called "Post-WW2" or "2nd Interwar Period", or something of the like.

Or to quote Futurama, "the Stupid Age".

As an aspiring historian (and perhaps archaeologist), I object to your use of the term "Dark Ages," as it represents a completely false view of history largely invented by people in the Renaissance who wanted to feel better about themselves.

That is all.

I truly hope we're not at the start of another pseudo-Dark Age. And by Dark Age I do not mean the Middle Ages, though. Even if some historians say so, the Middle Ages wasn't a period of total ignorance, at least not where it comes to monasteries preserving the knowledge of the ancients and so forth.

As an aspiring historian (and perhaps archaeologist), I object to your use of the term "Dark Ages," as it represents a completely false view of history largely invented by people in the Renaissance who wanted to feel better about themselves.

That is all.

If I were born in the Renaissance, I'd almost certainly feel better about myself for not having been born a few hundred ears earlier.

For the record, the best Dark Age is Mechwarrior's Dark Age. Because, you know, giant robots.

If I were born in the Renaissance, I'd almost certainly feel better about myself for not having been born a few hundred ears earlier.

For the record, the best Dark Age is Mechwarrior's Dark Age. Because, you know, giant robots.

Bah. Mechwarrior Dark Age raped the Battletech Universe with a rusty spoon.

If I were born in the Renaissance, I'd almost certainly feel better about myself for not having been born a few hundred ears earlier.

For the record, the best Dark Age is Mechwarrior's Dark Age. Because, you know, giant robots.

Well, yes, so would I, but mostly because I'd enjoy the few hundred years of innovation. I'd feel quite good about myself if I were born a few hundred years after now, assuming I wasn't born into a time of extreme hardship or anything. But the thing is, it's not as if intellectual thought died in the "Dark Ages," or that society stopped progressing. That's simply not true.

As an aspiring historian (and perhaps archaeologist), I object to your use of the term "Dark Ages," as it represents a completely false view of history largely invented by people in the Renaissance who wanted to feel better about themselves.

That is all.

I recently read a book by...Pernaud, I think was her name. That was basically her thesis, that the period between 500 and 1500 was not a monolithic era, and that later writers just made it a catch-all period for stuff they didn't like. Is was a good book, although not the best translation.

I recently read a book by...Pernaud, I think was her name. That was basically her thesis, that the period between 500 and 1500 was not a monolithic era,

Exactly. While pop culture might paint "The Middle Ages" as one bloc of culture, in reality, culture varied greatly by time and place. I mean, look at, say, Denmark in 900, and then look at it in 1400. Two completely different cultures, though, of course, you would find similarities.

Dark ages already started
part control
part lack of public interest
reality check who is your state representative (or equiv)
who is your cleark of courts
who is your ombudsman and why would you talk to him
who was the last american idol
does brittney spears have a pimple on her butt
do you ever talk about a sports team like it actually matters

As an aspiring historian (and perhaps archaeologist), I object to your use of the term "Dark Ages," as it represents a completely false view of history largely invented by people in the Renaissance who wanted to feel better about themselves.

That is all.

It's not my term. It's a term in general use to describe the time in Europe immediately after the fall of Rome, when the Church moved to suppress knowledge from all non-Christian sources - which meant, basically, all knowledge. There was political chaos, disease, starvation, illiteracy among the rulers as well as the ruled - it was generally a pretty bleak time in most of Europe. It's also a time for which we don't have a lot of historical records (though those records we do have pretty much support the contention that it was not a pleasant time to live in Europe), so a lot of myths, like that of King Arthur, developed, and a lot of historical figures, like Charlemagne, were mythologized.

I'd say it's a fairly accurate descriptive term, both in terms of the ignorance and general misery rampant at the time and in terms of the dearth of historical records about the time.

We already have too many people on earth, yet the population is rising. We're also starting to feel the first effects of global warming. Whether we have a dark age -- and, if so, how severe it will be -- will depend on how much we reign in uncontrolled breeding and global warming.

The term "Dark Ages" should be restricted to approx. 500-800, when there really wasn't much of any literature or art or architecture, or organized government even, and lifespans were very short due to chronic warfare, famines and plagues (the population of Europe actually contracted). After Charlemagne, we start to see the monks copying manuscripts, and at least religious artwork, etc. The last third of the medieval period, approx. 1100-1400, distinguished as the "High Middle Ages", when there was actually a lot of interesting stuff going on, until a succession of crises in the 14th century (onset of the Little Ice Age causing a lot of crop failures; outbreak of the Hundred Years' War between England and France; "Black Death" wave of bubonic plague; the Great Schism between rival Popes in Rome and Avignon) slowed progress to a crawl again. The "Renaissance" people were really comparing themselves to the catastrophic disorganization of the early 1400's, patting themselves on the back for being a rebirth of relative order and prosperity.

The "Renaissance" people were really comparing themselves to the catastrophic disorganization of the early 1400's, patting themselves on the back for being a rebirth of relative order and prosperity.
Which is funny, because that time could just as easily be called the early Renaissance as the late Middle Ages.

Which is funny, because that time could just as easily be called the early Renaissance as the late Middle Ages.

Depending on what part of Europe. The Renaissance started in Italy as early as the 1300s. That period was called "trecento" and saw the birth of vernacualr Italian used in literature. Bocaccio is the perfect example.

The Renaissance started, in Spain for example, in the mid to late 1500s.

Depending on what part of Europe. The Renaissance started in Italy as early as the 1300s. That period was called "trecento" and saw the birth of vernacualr Italian used in literature. Bocaccio is the perfect example.

The Renaissance started, in Spain for example, in the mid to late 1500s.
True, and that's another good reason why the term is fuzzy.
"The Middle Ages were awful. They ended...uh...when things stopped being awful."

True, and that's another good reason why the term is fuzzy.
"The Middle Ages were awful. They ended...uh...when things stopped being awful."

I thought the same. Then I studied Medieval art history and, to tell you the truth, it wasn't such a horrible period.

But yes, the term is fuzzy because the Middle Ages did not end at the same time in the different European countries. Italy entered the Renaissance first than anyone else, with Northern Europe and Spain being almost the last to experience the transition.

As an aspiring historian (and perhaps archaeologist), I object to your use of the term "Dark Ages," as it represents a completely false view of history largely invented by people in the Renaissance who wanted to feel better about themselves.

That is all.

Strictly speaking, it's more correct to say "Early Middle Ages" if you're talking about approximate period from the fall of Rome to the 2nd millennium CE. But here we're talking about the general notion of a period of cultural and intellectual decline, so there's not really a better term.

Well that's the thing, isn't it? history is always more complicated than the popular culture realizes. They try to teach "the simple version" but that gets accepted as truth when, in reality, it isn't.

Strictly speaking, it's more correct to say "Early Middle Ages" if you're talking about approximate period from the fall of Rome to the 2nd millennium CE. But here we're talking about the general notion of a period of cultural and intellectual decline, so there's not really a better term.

I still wouldn't go as far as calling the Middle Ages "a period of cultural decline".

I thought the same. Then I studied Medieval art history and, to tell you the truth, it wasn't such a horrible period.
How much did you see from before 800?

I still wouldn't go as far as calling the Middle Ages "a period of cultural decline".
Would you prefer "stagnation?"

Strictly speaking, it's more correct to say "Early Middle Ages" if you're talking about approximate period from the fall of Rome to the 2nd millennium CE. But here we're talking about the general notion of a period of cultural and intellectual decline, so there's not really a better term.

But even that decline isn't, strictly speaking, a completely accurate description. The closest you could really say would be "an extended period of instability in much of Europe, that slowed down intellectual progress and, in some cases, prevented it or caused it to regress."

How much did you see from before 800?

There wasn't much to see. From 500 AD to roughly 981 AD, things are sketchy. Besides the works that a few monasteries like Iona did in preserving some of the works of the Greeks and the Romans or producing illuminated manuiscripts, there's really not much to see.

When the first millenium started, things started to pick, slightly.

Would you prefer "stagnation?"

In some parts of human endevours there was, indeed, a high grade of stagnation. But not everything was stagnant, to use your term. Some of the best examples of bestiaries and illuminated manuscripts come from this period.

Beatus of Lebanon
The Book of Kells
Lindisfarne Gospel

In some parts of human endevours there was, indeed, a high grade of stagnation. But not everything was stagnant, to use your term. Some of the best examples of bestiaries and illuminated manuscripts come from this period.

Beatus of Lebanon
The Book of Kells
Lindisfarne Gospel

Yes, but when I say that the approximate period from the fall of Rome to the 2nd millennium CE was a period of general intellectual decline/stagnation, I don't mean that there was absolutely no art at all. Much of the products of Classical civilization were lost, many are only extant today because they were preserved by the Islamic Empire. And not a whole lot was produced in the Early Middle Ages.

Besides, I did say that it was a general historiographical term to refer to the popular notion of any given period of cultural decline, not that I thought it was a wholly accurate descriptor of the Early Middle Ages.

There wasn't much to see. From 500 AD to roughly 981 AD, things are sketchy.
That's my point. Take out 800-981, and there's virtually NOTHING to see, not even monasteries writing beautiful illuminated manuscripts. It is not fair to tar the whole medieval period with the "Dark Ages" label, but there most definitely did exist a multi-century period for which no other label really fits.

EDIT: I see that the Lindisfarne manuscript is dated c. 715, although Kells and Beatus are later. A little bit of learning and art was happening out in the islands before Charlemagne's "Carolingian renaissance" (he had to import monks from Ireland to get his schools started; obviously something had to have been going right in Ireland first), but for the continent, at least, 500-800 is just about a complete blank.

I don't think so. I think the power of the religious fundamentalists, at least in the USA, is waning, not growing.

Strictly speaking, it's more correct to say "Early Middle Ages" if you're talking about approximate period from the fall of Rome to the 2nd millennium CE. But here we're talking about the general notion of a period of cultural and intellectual decline, so there's not really a better term.

That's either brave, controvertial, or ill informed. I suspect the latter. Inter alia, Boethius, Bede, Alcuin, Paulinus, Gregory of Tours, Gregory the Great, Einhard and Procopius all made substantial contributions to the corpus of christian literary works in late antiquity, whilst the achievements of Al-andalus are wondrous. So too, and forgive my only providing the briefest of overviews for lack of materials to hand, is Hagia Sophia, what remains of the palatine complex at Aachen, Theoderic's mausoleum at Ravenna, and the myriad Byzantine mosaics, murals and iconography produced.

Indeed, regarding Byzantine production, the extant corpus of religious images is a pallid, attenuated residue of that that existed before iconoclasm.

Not that I'm an early medievalist myself, much, but the allegation that it represents the cultural nadir between the lustre of Greco-Roman production and the high medieval ages is frankly ignorant.

That's my point. Take out 800-981, and there's virtually NOTHING to see, not even monasteries writing beautiful illuminated manuscripts. It is not fair to tar the whole medieval period with the "Dark Ages" label, but there most definitely did exist a multi-century period for which no other label really fits.

EDIT: I see that the Lindisfarne manuscript is dated c. 715, although Kells and Beatus are later. A little bit of learning and art was happening out in the islands before Charlemagne's "Carolingian renaissance" (he had to import monks from Ireland to get his schools started; obviously something had to have been going right in Ireland first), but for the continent, at least, 500-800 is just about a complete blank.

No, there are any number of other heuristic devices one might use, and "dark age" simply isn't correct. The vanguard of the Carolingian renaissance were indeed from Northumbria, Ireland and Italy, but the second generation were not; Hrabanus Maurus, Einhard, Ermold, Lupus of Ferrieres, Hincmar of Rheims, "the Astronomer", "the reviser", the "poeta saxo" and a myriad other figures were all Frankish or Germanic by birth, and yet all disciples of the artificers of the "court of scholars"; Peter of Pisa, Theodulf of Orleans, Alcuin, Paulinus of Aquileia.

500-800 is just about a complete blank.
Eh what about the Levant, North Africa and Spain? That's looking not too bad about this time.

That's either brave, controvertial, or ill informed. I suspect the latter. Inter alia, Boethius, Bede, Alcuin, Paulinus, Gregory of Tours, Gregory the Great, Einhard and Procopius all made substantial contributions to the corpus of christian literary works in late antiquity, whilst the achievements of Al-andalus are wondrous. So too, and forgive my only providing the briefest of overviews for lack of materials to hand, is Hagia Sophia, what remains of the palatine complex at Aachen, Theoderic's mausoleum at Ravenna, and the myriad Byzantine mosaics, murals and iconography produced.

Indeed, regarding Byzantine production, the extant corpus of religious images is a pallid, attenuated residue of that that existed before iconoclasm.

Not that I'm an early medievalist myself, much, but the allegation that it represents the cultural nadir between the lustre of Greco-Roman production and the high medieval ages is frankly ignorant.

I don't think you parsed my statement correctly. I was defending the OP's use of "Dark Age" because it referred to the popular idea of any given historical period in which culture stalls or regresses. The original topic had nothing to do with the Middle Ages, but people felt like it was being denigrated and started complaining about the historiographical inaccuracy of the term "Dark Age."

Also, even when people talk about the Dark Ages as a specific historical period, they're generally talking about Western Europe, so it's immaterial that Byzantine and Islamic civilization was progressing differently.

...and here I thought the dark age started ~1200 BC, where pretty much every major civilization from modern greece through the fertile crescent was wiped out... mycenaean greece, hittites, troy, half of egypt, kassites...

...and here I thought the dark age started ~1200 BC, where pretty much every major civilization from modern greece through the fertile crescent was wiped out... mycenaean greece, hittites, troy, half of egypt, kassites...
Nope.

I think this age will be defined by a unique stratification in society--those who grow from the internet, and those who become stupider when confronted with it.

Nothing new, really. Recall the moral outrage of many people against the decadent humanism of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which personified itself either violently in the Inquisition and the Bonfire of the Vanities (among many others) or in the form of major religious changes such as the Reformation and the Great Awakenings. Or perhaps the various movements associated with the Luddites that feared industrialization would destroy their way of life...

Really, compared to eras past the reaction against this is rather tame in the developed world. It's the Islamic countries, with their combination of ignorance, poverty, oppression and fanaticism that pose the biggest threat to scientific progress; they are a lot more like Christianity in the 15th century, with all of its pogroms and purges than any Christians in existence today.

I believe either of two things are likely to happen after this "information age". If the corporations win and remove internet neutrality, they will control content like they do with television and other media. Then it will be the "Disinformation Age". If they lose it will be fine, no Dark Age, just a Dork Age.

I don't think you parsed my statement correctly. I was defending the OP's use of "Dark Age" because it referred to the popular idea of any given historical period in which culture stalls or regresses. The original topic had nothing to do with the Middle Ages, but people felt like it was being denigrated and started complaining about the historiographical inaccuracy of the term "Dark Age."
The OP was talking about the era between Rome and the Renaissance, or at least implying it, with mention of the Church holding knowledge, the fall of Roman civilization, etc. As a label a period when culture stalls or regresses I guess there's nothing wrong, and so maybe folks were hasty in questioning it. It is a little off-topic.

I don't think you parsed my statement correctly. I was defending the OP's use of "Dark Age" because it referred to the popular idea of any given historical period in which culture stalls or regresses. The original topic had nothing to do with the Middle Ages, but people felt like it was being denigrated and started complaining about the historiographical inaccuracy of the term "Dark Age."

Also, even when people talk about the Dark Ages as a specific historical period, they're generally talking about Western Europe, so it's immaterial that Byzantine and Islamic civilization was progressing differently.

And I've cited great evidence to the contrary for western Europe. The difference, crucially, is that little architecture remains, having been built over in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and, beyond that, the majority of evidence is somewhat abstruse dialectic, exegesis and use of the classics. All terribly impressive, but not as immediately imposing as later or earlier works.

Curiously enough, the term "Dark age" did have currency amongst Carolingians faced with the encircling, tenebrous darkness after the death of Louis the Pious.

Nope.

Sorry, but yes, it does as well.

That's my point. Take out 800-981, and there's virtually NOTHING to see, not even monasteries writing beautiful illuminated manuscripts. It is not fair to tar the whole medieval period with the "Dark Ages" label, but there most definitely did exist a multi-century period for which no other label really fits.

EDIT: I see that the Lindisfarne manuscript is dated c. 715, although Kells and Beatus are later. A little bit of learning and art was happening out in the islands before Charlemagne's "Carolingian renaissance" (he had to import monks from Ireland to get his schools started; obviously something had to have been going right in Ireland first), but for the continent, at least, 500-800 is just about a complete blank.

I was reading, not too long ago, a book my Thomas Cahill about the Celtic Church, and roughly steming from this period between 700 AD and the early 1000s, the Celtic Church basically kept the culture and literature legacies of the ancient world alive. But yes, after the fall of Rome all the way to 900s, there's not much to see, but I still wouldn't venture to use a complete BLANK when referring to this period.