Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 15:13:44 -0400 From: Stirling Newberry <allegro-AT-thecia.net> Subject: Re: PLC: Culture numbers >Stirling Newberry wrote: > >> >> The joker in these numbers is that many things labeled as "self-governing >> states" now are not monlithic entities. By confusing "internationally >> recognised soveriegn states" with real units of government it creates a >> misleadingly strong trend line. Consider that *techincally* in 1648 there >> were, if I remember correctly, only 2 *sovereign* states in Germany by the >> definitions of the time - the Holy Roman Emporer and the King of Saxony, > >There may be some jokers in these numbers -- it would take several decks >to skew >the curve, though -- but I think your technical point is not a well advised >one. Of European nations, Germany was one that came to unity belatedly -- >Bismark's fame is staked on it -- and many today emphasize the "Federal" >of the >Federal Republic of Germany. Indeed, many say Bavaria is still not part of >Germany, and many Bavarians are only too happy to agree. > >Regards, >Reg > > My point was that the number of "less than 200" comes from measuring what is considered "an internationally recognised state" now, and from measuring units which we now regard as "effectively" states from previous eras. This is not a valid comparison, because previous eras had their legal fictions as we now have ours. To correctly measure the number it would require that real entities be considered. Just as Germany was "in theory" unified in 1610, but was not in practice, there are several nations that one could point to now which are "in theory" unified, but in practice are anything but. Intnernational law uses the term "Sovereign" nation which at that time was restricted to a limited number of states - ones ruled over by "Sovereigns". In fact one could argue that the trend has been reversed since 1945 with the end of colonialism and the break up of the Soviet Empire. Which "trend" is more important? My underlying point is that such comparisons are meaningless because they almost always label different things as the same. Is England in 1415 "one sovereign state" ? Really? What about "Palatainates" - areas that the King's writ does not hold? France is an even more tangled question at the same time. To not very respectfully disagree - the technical point is sound - one must have a consistent definition of what a "self-governing" area is to draw any sort of conclusion. The numbers indicate that the person compiling them has not used a consitent definition, and hence the conclusions are suspect. Stirling Newberry business: openmarket.com personal: allegro-AT-thecia.net War and Romance: http://www.thecia.net/users/allegro/public_html --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005