One of the points Strayer makes against considering the Twentieth Century and beyond a new era is the brevity of time lapsed. He states that compared to other eras, which have lasted 500 years and longer, this "era" would have only been a bit over one hundred years. I disagree that long length in years is a requirement for defining an era. I think it has more to do with the rate of change of ideas, technology, progress and the like. I feel that the rate of change of these components of humanity have sped up to where one hundred contemporary years could very well be relevant to 500 ancient years. So, I think that we can consider the 20th century and beyond a new era. If the modern era was defined by reclaiming humanist ideas, expanding the understanding of science and believing in its capabilities to bring humans closer to their potential for good and help us continually improve, outright colonial takeover, and revolutions that were founded on the ideas of equality, democracy, religious tolerance, and popular sovereignty. Then the post Modern Era, if you will, is founded on humanist beliefs gone crazy, where humans have now put our own importance above everything else, the understanding that science can lead to horrors as well as enlightenment, and an era of wars which from where no one learns from. I do believe we are in a new era. (wc 239)
No comments:
Post a Comment