Humanity has not changed much socially over the past millenium

Thank you for your response. Before I start into my arguments proper,I would simply like to clear up one small matter. When I first stared this argument, I stated that humanity has not changed as much as we might think it has. What I meant was that I accept that there has been some change, but that overall there are many similarities between humanity in 1011 and humanity in 2011. With that in mind, here is my answer to each of your arguments. Economic You made the point that within the period in question, there was a great revolution in terms of technology and transportation brought about by the Industrial Revolution. I do not think that anyone would argue that point. But for an argument on humanity, I think that you focused too much on the economics and not enough on the people, the "humanity". First off there is no consensus that the overall standard of living in countries that had the Industrial Revolution rose. It has been a matter of debate since at least the 1950's as to the social changes the Revolution brought about with many historians arguing that the standard of living actually got worse. A series of 1950s essays by Henry Phelps Brown and Sheila V. Hopkins (1) later set the academic consensus that the bulk of the population, that was at the bottom of the social ladder, suffered severe reductions in their living standards. There is also the division of society into different classes. At the beginning of our agreed upon time frame, 1011, in what is commonly called the High Middle Ages, society was divided into upper, middle and lower classes. Does anyone think that this system does not exist anymore? Don't those classes still exist? People are still far more divided by wealth or lack thereof than by anything else and the divide is only growing. Major areas of social science still rely on class based explanations of personal identity, for instance, the history from below school of Marxist history (2). Outside of Marxist influenced thought, there is still much evidence suggesting that class affects everyone. Some ideas from different sociologists follow: * Jordan suggested that those in poverty had the same attitudes on work and family as those in other classes, this being backed up with surveys expressing that the poor/working class/lower class feel almost shame about their position in society. * MacIntosh and Mooney noted that there was still an upper-class which seems to isolate itself from other classes. It is almost impossible to get into the upper-class. They (upper-class) kept their activities (marriage, education, peer groups) as a closed system. * Marshall et al. noted that many manual class workers are still aware of many class issues. They believed in a possible conflict of interest, and saw themselves as working class. This counters the postmodern claims that it is consumption which defines an individual. * Andrew Adonis and Stephen Pollard (1998) discovered a new super class, which consisted of elite professionals and managers, which held high salaries and share ownership. * Chapman noted there was still an existence of a self-recruiting upper-class identity. * Dennis Gilbert argues that class is bound to exist in any complex society as not all occupations are equal and that households do form pattern of interaction that give rise to social classes. Technology Has technology changed how people behave? I do not believe so. The forms of communication may have changed, but the problems are still the same. Does anyone believe that the creation of newer, more efficient forms of communications has helped with our social problems? The change in technology as not lessened our social conflict. If anything it has made it worse. There has always been social problems and technology has not fixed this. 1000 years ago people were agitating for their rights. The simple proof of this is the issuing of the Coronation Charter in 1100, the Magna Carta in 1215. Also, the advent of the Industrial Revolution did not prevent the outbreak of class based conflicts like the French or Russian Revolutions and all of the troubles that they spawned. Technology can sometimes only serve to exacerbate a situation. Lets not forget that the riots in in the United Kingdom were only made easier for the rioters by their use of social networking websites like facebook and twitter (3). Also, I think that it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that "one millennium ago, if you lived in England, you wouldn't know what was going on in Africa". Clearly, if people in England were going on crusade to the Holy Land, then they obviously knew the Saracen conquests there. Technology may have changed, but social conflicts have not. After all, this debate is about society. Cultural You have pointed out the art of the Renaissance as being an example of humanity changing. Obviously you are not aware of the ongoing debate on the subject of whether or not the Roman Empire really ended or if it simply changed form. Since the second half of the 19th century, historians such as Pirenne, Lucien Musset and historians of late antiquity have been arguing that Rome simply change form (4). Further, there has been an acceptance that, in their long struggle against the Roman Empire, many of the Empires enemies actually adopted Roman ideas and institutions for themselves thus prolonging them e.g. Charlemagnes use of the title Holy Roman Emperor. I believe that this lasting Roman influence is seen even in the 1200's in art. In Italy in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, the sculpture of Nicola Pisano and his son Giovanni Pisano, working at Pisa, Siena and Pistoia shows markedly classicising tendencies, probably influenced by the familiarity of these artists with ancient Roman sarcophagi (5). The humanism evident in art over the last 1000 years extends right back to the Roman Empire and beyond to ancient Greece and perhaps further. Religious There was never one Christian Church. Even 1000 years after the death of Jesus, there those who disputed the Catholic Church's teachings on Jesus. Arians, Nestorians, Cathars, Coptics and the Greek Orthodox Church. Even in the Middle Ages, there were Hussites, Lollards and Waldensians who challenged Church teaching. So I think it fair to say there were was always a strong seem of dissent within Christianity as a whole. Even today, there is a liberal-conservative split in the Catholic Church. Also, I do not accept your assertion that the Reformation increased Christianity. With about 1.41-1.57 billion Muslims, comprising about 21-23% (6) of the world's population, Islam is the second-largest religion and one of the fastest-growing religions in the world. Also, the work ethic is not confined to Protestant Christianity. At the height of their power in the Middle Ages, Muslim armies controlled vast swathes of territory from Spain and Morrocco deep into Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and the Far East. Islamic civilisation was once considered to be the best in the world. If it wasn't for Islam, many of the great literary works of Ancient Greece and Rome would have been lost. And while you may say that Arab countries deviated from this glorious path, its also fair to say that the Christian world become obsessed with glamour, materialism and tabloids. Also, contrary to your assertions about the relationship between Catholics and Protestants, while it is true that most of them do get along, do not forget about the violence and distrust in places like Northern Ireland and the cities in Western Scotland like Glasgow. 1..Wage rates and living standards in pre-industrial England Past & Present 1981 91(1):28-46 2..http://en.wikipedia.org... 3..http://en.wikipedia.org... Trials and Sentencing section 4..http://en.wikipedia.org... Transformation section 5..http://en.wikipedia.org... 6..http://en.wikipedia.org...