Posted on 06/13/2007 6:51:38 AM PDT by ventanax5
Heinsohn is not concerned with the absolute size of populations, but rather with the share of teenagers and young men. If this share becomes too big compared to the total population, we are facing a youth bulge. The problem starts when families begin to produce three, four or more sons. This will cause the sons to fight over access to the positions in society that give power and prestige. Then you will have a lot of boys and young men running around filled with aggression and uncontrollable hormones. And then we shall experience mass killings, until a sufficient number of young men have been eradicated to match society’s ability to provide positions for the survivors.
According to Heinsohn, 80 per cent of world history is about young men in nations with a surplus of sons, creating trouble. This trouble may take many forms — a increase in domestic crime, attempts at coups d’état, revolutions, riots and civil wars. Occasionally, the young commit genocide to secure for themselves the positions that belonged to those they killed. Finally, there is war to conquer new territory, killing the enemy population and replacing it with one’s own.
But, as Heinsohn emphasizes again and again, the unrest and the violent acts caused by youth bulges have nothing to do with famine or unemployment. In his book he describes it as follows: “The dynamic of a youth bulge — it cannot be emphasized too often — is not caused by a lack of food. A younger brother, who may be employed as a stable hand by the first-born son and who may be well fed and perhaps even fat, does not seek food but position, one that can guarantee him recognition, influence and dignity
(Excerpt) Read more at sappho.dk ...
Tommy Heinsohn?
Which is why, in a perverted sense, China’s one-child policy is good for the West. Those one-sons are born into family responsibility.
—bflr—
In North America and Europe, yes.
In most of the rest of the world, no.
There are very few countries in the world today where three or four sons per family are anything but quite rare.
sappho.dk ? A Danish Lesbian site?
Possibly Australia and Canada have such a policy. The US, much the largest country in the Anglo-Saxon world, obviously does not.
If anything, even our present policies, much less the proposed "reforms," discriminate against the well-qualified.
The Crusades are traditionally presented as an example of this “aggressive younger son” phenomenon.
Recent research has shown that this is basically a crock. Only the rich, mostly the barons themselves, had the money to finance Crusading.
Jihad of the time was by definition a border war. All you needed was a horse and a sword, and if you were lucky you could make yourself rich.
Crusading required financing the transportation of your army to what was at the time the other end of the world, and then keeping it supplied and reinforced.
True, but those Chinese only-sons have parents and grandparents to support and are much-needed in their society, the exact opposite of the extra-sons problem brewing in the Muslim world.
I’m wearing asbestos, so here goes:
One reason we are allowing massive Mexican immigration is because we need the bodies, both for the military and to pay into social programs.
The descendants of 17th and 18th century American colonists are no longer agrarian and are no longer producing large families. It may take a generation for hard-working Mexicans to become financially independent Americans, but the children of those illegal Spanish-speakers will do it if we let them.
I’m not speaking in theory but rather from first-person experience. I live among second and third generation Mexican families here in North Texas who have done just what I described.
I don’t like illegal immigration any better than anyone else on FR, but it doesn’t hurt to look at the bigger picture, and there it is.
No use flaming me unless it relieves some of your hostility and makes you feel better. Just telling the truth.
right
sounds more like feminst wet dreams of blaming all the men.
It would seem an oprahfied nation is far more destructive than anything else.
bob cousy high tops
You didn’t really address my post re the Chinese, btw. The overabundance of males in their society will feed their militaristic ambitions.
Sorry. I thought I did address the Chinese problem.
My point was this: the Chinese limit of one child — which through easily available abortion generally means one son — not only prevents the birth of little girls but also prevents an excess of males.
One male son carries on his shoulders the responsibility for caring and supporting aging parents, grandparents, etc., without help from siblings, as well as maintaining family honor and economic success.
A male that busy isn’t going to have much time for aggression toward the West. And China isn’t going to have a surplus of males who need the military to keep them busy, as mentioned in the above article.
As abhorrent as abortion is to me, in every way, I see the misguided Chinese one-child policy as a deterrent to Chinese aggression.
(Unless, of course, they need to capture brides for those lonely sons.)
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
“As abhorrent as abortion is to me, in every way, I see the misguided Chinese one-child policy as a deterrent to Chinese aggression.”
I traveled in China a good bit in the last 2 years (oil field equipment).
The one-child policy, has, indeed, had a huge impact on the professional (vs. draft) military and police -— sons are pressured by their families not to join these “dangerous” professions because they have the duty to take care of their families.
The result is the core of the Chinese military (the voluntary part) is increasingly weak.
Yes, still formidable. Yes, still lots of cannon fodder enlisted. But not what it could be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.