I don't know if it helpful during times like these but it sounds like the quote by G. Michael Hopf:
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times
https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...
Cycles in history is of course not "of course not true". in any complex system, there are oscillations. Most famous is economical boom and boost cycle.
Meme is not without merit. The reason we are able to discuss things like gender/race equity in marine corps promotions is precisely because these are good times. And this lack of focus may lead to bad times eventually.
> Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Muslim scholar from Tunisia
My point is: the dog whistle/modern meme is basically a reference to Spengler and others, because their ideologies align relatively well with the patchwork of neo-fascist ideas. That's what they hint to and promote. That's why I explicitly mentioned Spengler and the 20th century. Lot of other people developed some form of a cyclical history but that's not really relevant here.
which historians? And why should we pay any attention to their consensus?
Ascribing any fixed time scale to the cycle is going to be fallacious as it depends on environmental factors.
Comparing Rome to its enemies in this way as if “the toughness of the people” is THE variable that determined success, compared to say, coordinated mobility-based warfare tactics, is a stretch at best.
From my reading of history, the typical pattern is:
- Some set of tribes exist on the fringe of civilization (if one already existed). They have access to the bare minimum resources for survival. These are not strong men, yet, but relatively weak savages, probably not even worth conquering by the civilization closeby. What they do have, is an every-day reminder to stay efficient in what they do, so they don't starve to death. - After a while, one or a few of these tribes grow in competency and competitively useful cultural values. (Often, but not necessarily military.) They start trading with the nearby civilization, and learn from them, but maintain their focus on what is essential for survivial. Also, during this phase, this population is still facing survival pressures, often military ones. Gradually, these people become "strong", meaning they have competencies and a culture that makes it increasingly effortless to survive and prosper. Much of this comes from becoming cultured in ways that increase productivity or martial prowess. - Only at this stage, when survival is no longer a concern (and especially if all competetion has been eliminated), does the weakening stage start. Gradually cultural values seep in that reduce productivity/efficiency of the population. Meanwhile, essential survival skills fade to the background and are forgotten. Still, during most of this phase, this more civilized population has economic advantages and perhaps access to specialists that allow them to fend off nearby populations, often for centuries. - Eventually, though, some event (or series of events) occur that bring a shock to the sturcture of this civilization. Maybe a few bad harvests, maybe some barbarian invation, maybe a plague. At this point, the civilization has become brittle, and shatters easily.
I'm pretty sure I see this pattern repeat itself for the Greek, Roman, Muslim Caliphate, Ottoman and many Chinese civilizations. Then there are some cases that doesn't really go through all the stages. For instance, Mongols, Huns, Goths and some others spread themselves too thin to really build their own civilization, so they inherited whatever civilizations (including their corruption) they conquerd. Similarly, Europe form about 1000AD to the end of WW2 was always in a state of countries competing against each other, so they were constantly facing survival pressures that kept most of them from becoming _too_ corrupt.
The hard times in Ukraine now won't make anyone better. Men in west won't be inferior for not going through it.
And then you go on to express a not-so-objective viewpoint? OP is stating an idiom, a saying, a phrase. Let it be. There is nothing objective about it.
People regularly use this one as argument or to imply inferiority of those they look down at. Therefore, it is 100% alright to not that idiom stand.
Hmm, I disagree. I've seen it used as a statement of dysfunction in our society.
We were in a comfy peaceful era and yet we saw rise of extremism, neo nazis in germany, in the US even. Good times allow for forgetting the extent of what reality can be and then people start to have weird ideas when small problems come, only to react in shallow reflexes like nationalism, and war.
I may be dumb but I assumed people who saw wars just didn't want any of that anymore and would actually know what 'right value' means, not just school books or worse .. network propaganda.
Now sure, it can all be twisted, people can be brainwashed during and after war, there can be bad wounds for long too.
If wars _prevented_ extremism you’d think we’d have evidence of it by now.
Also I wonder what happened after “The Great War”? Did extremism decline then?
Yes. I too recall the many decades of peace after WWI. And the great leaders that arose in Europe after that conflict.
People with grit who struggle through puberty often produce children who wouldn’t bother to lift a finger to improve their lot or get a job:)
Ibn Khalodoun had described a cycle of four generations of rulers and his theory echoes in Fourth Turning theory nowadays.
So nihil novi sub sole...
We (the west) are not what we once were. I’m so sorry Ukraine.
Dismissing those efforts because of a vocal few or because it's people you don't like is a disservice to those actually struggling.