Might one member of the formerly British empire speak here, slightly off topic? I am very uncomfortable with some of what is suggested in this post.
Quote:
Practically, the Victorians made major effect in change for the positive. Perhaps the literature you are reading from that era would give you a different picture. But authors fantasize. Else, 150 years from now, people might think our era was full of vampires and aliens, and our mythology ran toward people being batteries for a machine-world.
Likewise, human nature has been, and remains, a curious mixture of good and evil. We can easily label the 1930's and 40's as "dark days," because so many people gave in to the evils of fascism and totalitarianism. If not for the influence of Churchill, we might still be in those dark days--or worse. Yet, the evil influences of the era were not uniform, for the British people did stand, even alone, until the US woke to the crisis and joined the fray.
I think cultural and religious influences on the English speaking people (Britain and America) caused them to act completely differently than their counterparts on the European continent during that time. Though all possessed the same sinful nature.
|
Theron Bugtussle, with respect, I beg to differ. England did not stand alone. Not in World War I nor in World War II. Canada entered both wars from their beginning. In fact, it was a Canadian offensive which began the final 'Hundred Days' battle which led up to the Armistice on November 11, 1918. Were it not for the conveys across the Atlantic and Canadian support, England might well not have withstood until the US finally entered the fray.
And as for your suggestion that it was England and America which upheld the effort against fascism and totalitarianism, you might want to examine a little closer just how much support existed in the US for the fascist position. *coughs* The patriarch of the Kennedy clan being only one prominent name. You might also look at the role of resistance fighters throughout Europe before you claim religious superiority for John Bull and his successors.
There were, indeed, positive actions taken by people during the nineteenth century to work for the betterment of mankind. Yes, churches were in the forefront of the campaign to ban slavery throughout the British empire, which occured decades before the American Civil War. However, that did not stop British ships and captains from plying the slave trade even after the formal ban in the Empire. The history of English as well as European expansion into Africa is not one of the Western world's finest hours.
Nor, indeed, can the issue be referred only to literature. One need only look at several social issues to see that religion did not always in the Victorian Age mean moral superiority. The plight of chimney sweeps (poor working class children who were often left to die if they became trapped in the chimneys), the destitution of poor women, the effect of the enclosure laws, the Luddite Rebellion, the divorce laws, the creation of "asylums" for the insane (with their guided tours for the leisured classes)--one could name many areas where social reality left much to be desired.
For every example of human depravity in this age, someone can point to horrors of the past. Witch hunts, burnings at the stake, torture--all are complex issues with many different causes. I don't think any one country or any one religious sect can claim superiority. Historical issues are always, I think, very complex, more complex than general statements can perhaps allow and more complex than the scope of this topic allows. And, I would humbly suggest, this very issue of whether our age is a worse age than those which have preceeded us is itself determined largely by perspective and opinion.
But for my part I would humbly suggest that we consider the role of genre in any discussion of character. Is Lord of the Rings a novel? Or is it an heroic romance? Do the characters partake more of archetypes from mythology than of characters from the realm of realistic fiction? Should we expect realism (that is, depth or complexity) in their depiction?
Edit: My apologies,
Saucy, for replying at length to a point very much tangential to your excellent thread. I must also say that I had not seen Lush's reply before posting my own.
[ November 21, 2003: Message edited by: Bęthberry ]