• Climate change and Maya political systems | …
  • Maya civilization - Wikipedia
  • Mayan Civilization

This tributary empire was made to expand the political astronomical and mathematical systems What is the difference between Aztec and Mayan?

Mayan Social and Political System The Same The Mayans had many kings.

AOL - News, Politics, Sports & Latest Headlines

The Mayan political structure has been most closely compared to that of whom? - 247194
I was also particularly interested in Professor Leonard's comment on the link between evangelical religion and progressivist politics. I have heard a similar argument about Jews and progressive politics (specifically 'tikkum olam' and how that has been interpreted by some Jews) but had not heard the same argument about Protestantism. (I may well have been blind-sided by the contemporary political stance of many evangelicals today in the US). Is there any definitive treatment of this theme that anyone can recommend? ( I will get Prof. Leonard's book as well)

Mayans, Toltecs, Aztecs, and Incas


Second, I am skeptical of intellectual constructions that argue that some historical ideas necessarily lead to certain outcomes one disagrees with. For example, in most of Western Europe unlike in the United States, the conservative intellectual tradition is favorable to a strong state. Ideas that Americans would call communitarian are strongly intertwined with nationalism in Europe, putting the "national community" above the individual. Read conservative European philosophers of ideas or historians, and you will find accounts, just as persuasive as Leonard's, that "progressive" ideas are the necessary consequence of economic liberalism run amok, and that all the ills of the modern world go back to 19th century classical liberals substituting the markets and individual whims for political will.

 

Ancient Calendars, What Did They Mean? How Were They …


You may very well be right that this podcast was meant to be about "America", I myself didn't see it so constrained. Most of the ideas discussed in this podcast (Eugenics, Social Darwinism. Classical Liberalism) were developed in Western Europe, had a profound impact on the intellectual landscape there, and only later were imported into the States. The US, during the "progressive" era, was a relative intellectual backwater. For me, speaking only about America regarding important historical issues such as political philosophy is like talking only about Cleveland when discussing important historical trends about 'America'. Unnecessarily narrow. But you may be very well correct about the extreme narrowness of the scope of the podcast and the scope of your comment.


Thomas Leonard: Yeah. Viewed from today, it's pretty ugly stuff, Russ. Some of these passages that you've read aloud were hard for me to write. But for the most part, these quotes are, if you like, letting the men who said them hang . It doesn't require any further sorts of indictment than to see what sorts of arguments that they made. One thing that--it turns that the Chinese play a really key role in the American anti-immigration movement. The Chinese were the first race--using the terminology of the day--to be legally excluded from the United States on racial grounds because they were Chinese. The Chinese Exclusion Act dates to 1882, and it follows a decade or more of [?] mob violence against Chinese immigrants and Chinese workers in California. And if you think about it, it's ugly of course, but it's also a little bit odd. Because the Chinese worker who they are vilifying as coolies--that's a very important and particular usage--the Chinese worker is basically being accused of being hard-working, of being law-abiding, of being frugal and resourceful. And these are quintessentially American virtues, aren't they? At least in the small-'r' republican tradition. So, if you are going to try to demonize someone as a threat, as a hereditary threat, as a political threat, and of course as an economic threat to Anglo-Saxon American workers, you have to come up with someone . And so, what they came up with--the progressives, activists, the economists, and some of the labor unions--was that they had this sort of supernatural ability to subsist on nothing. And that was in fact linked to their . Today we might give it a cultural explanation, but at the time it was deemed an innate quality. And furthermore, that living standard, this ability to live at subsistence, was not only determined by race but it also somehow led them to accept unusually substandard low wages. Of course, that doesn't follow at all if you think about it. Just because you frugally doesn't mean that you are willing to accept low wages. If there's any competition in the market, you won't. It just means you are saving your money so that maybe you can bring some more of your family to safety, or maybe start a small business. So the actual economics of it are a little bit puzzling. And we could talk about that if you want, but I don't want to get too far in the weeds. This is the moment where Labor Economics, which it was not yet called--that's anachronistic--still hadn't fully adopted marginal productivity as a theory of how wages are determined. It's sort of a mishmash, say: there's still an idea that wages are partly determined by living standards and if you can say that living standard is a function of race or indeed of gender, then you are off to the races. And, just to finish the thought, Russ, this model of demonizing the Chinese as --that was sort of the term of the art; that's what made them a threat--was later adapted and applied to immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, and so-called defectives--people with physical and mental disabilities. And ultimately to women, too, using the same sort of argument.


Maya ballplayers were often depicted in the artwork of vases

Russ Roberts: Now, I want to talk about the concept of the state that got promoted at this time. And it's a little bit frightening to me, because it's the exact same discussion that we have today. It's come up many times on this program, and when I critique what turns out--I didn't realize this--to be the progressive attitude, people get very mad at me and write angry things. But I want to quote a little passage here. You say,

The progressives developed elaborate, often anthropomorphic depictions of society as an organism.... Henry Carter Adams said the social organism had a "conscious purpose." Political journalist Herbert Croly conceived of the American nation as "an enlarged individual." Ross described society as "a living thing, actuated, like all the higher creatures, by the instinct for self-preservation." The state, Richard T. Ely declared, was "a moral person."
These are all very well-respected economists, sociologists of the day. And they saw the state as a distinct thing from the people who made it up. Society, as a distinct thing. And of course government and politics were just the vehicle by which that entity acted, somehow in our interest. This--I call it a 'romance.' It's, I think, a dangerous romance. And many of my listeners--I apologize to you out there--I know you've liked that idea. What I'd like hear from you, Tim, is: Where did that idea come from? It was not in American discourse, I don't think, or other discourse, until then. It seems like it was created around then.

The ancient Olmec Civilization - Aztec History

While I have no doubt that there are many who "disagree" with me about the scope of government (and I do see these Lefty types as a product of social conditioning, indoctrination, and left-of-center 'brain-washing' at the hands of previous generations with a particular left-of-center political preference), there are a great deal more who are merely resigned to the present political status-quo. If less government were conducive the improved living conditions , then I think those passively resigned can be convinced that a less regulatory, more circumscribed form of government may "work".