An American Warden Visited A Norwegian Prison, And He Couldn't Believe What He Saw
http://www.businessinsider.com/an-american-warden-visited-a-norwegian-prison--and-he-couldnt-believe-what-he-saw-2014-10
Retired superintendent James Conway is a 38-year veteran of the Attica Correctional Facility in New York. He spent none of that time pitying his inmates.
"It was your actions that put yourself here," he said, referring to the prisoners. "Who cares how they feel?"
Well, Conway experienced quite a shock when he visited Halden Prison, one of the newest correctional facilities in Norway.
In an excerpt from a made-for-TV documentary called "The Norden," Jan Stromnes, deputy head of the prison, takes Conway on a tour of the premises — and he couldn't believe what he saw.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/an-american-warden-visited-a-norwegian-prison--and-he-couldnt-believe-what-he-saw-2014-10#ixzz3GmISOyOT
= new reply since forum marked as read
We learned a lot when we are young. I hate handling worms to this day, for when I was about 3-4 years of age I went to pick up a stick and it was sleamy, it turned out to be a garden snake, that then bite me. I hate slimy things to this day for that reason.
I had a dog that hated boxes, for the when he was given to my father, that had been the first time that dog had been inside a box. Any animal hates change and while we were good to the dog, he always hated boxes and refused to go in them. He did eventually overcame his hatred but it took a few years.
Another dog, that had been shipped to my family in a create, had no dislike for creates for she had been in and out of them before she was shipped, but she hated getting into cars. I suspect the first time she was in a car was when she was shipped to my family and thus connected cars with bad things. It took months for her to overcome that fear, even as we took her almost every day in cars to do the walks she loved.
A lot of fear, hated and racism is tied in with past harms one had incurred. Like me as to snakes and worms, and my dogs as to boxes and cars, they can be overcome with time but in many ways once learned they remain with you. That is the point I was trying to make, that we often "Learn" things that are wrong based on experience as oppose to reality. It takes a lot of effort to overcome such views that had become innate in us based on experience and out effort to make sense of those experiences.
As to Feudalism. You are accepting the argument of Capitalism that Feudalism was BAD and had to be replaced by today's Capitalism. If you actually look into Feudalism, it was NOT that bad. Yes, Peasants own duties to their Lords, but their Lords owned duties to their Peasants.
Feudalism came out of the need to raise troops and support those troops in an economy with little cash. It started in Western Europe in the Middle Ages and more recent research indicated it started in Greece as a way to raise troops, first to defeat the Persians in the Last Roman-Persian War (c 600) and then the Arabs during the Arab Conquest (c 620). In the Eastern Empire, Units of the Imperial Army were assigned to districts for purposes of raising troops for that unit, but also support for that unit. Egypt was excluded from this change for it had been under Persian Rule then Arab Rule except for dozen years in between the two wars, during the time of the transition.
These is some indications that parts of the switch pre-dates this time period. That troops were paid in land, which only became their son's land after he had served in the Army can be traced to the time of Diocletian (c 280 BC), some units retained the name of Legion but most units stop using the name Legion when Constantine removed the requirement that leaders of Legion be Senators (c 320 AD). Cavalry became the preferred arm of the Roman Army by the time a Maurice (c580 AD). The big change was the decision to merge the Civil Government with the Military unit raised in that same administrative unit. For years this was believed to be under Heraclius, the Emperor who defeated the Persians in the last Roman-Persian War, and who had been Emperor when the Arabs took Persia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt during the first years of the Arab Conquest. It now appears to have started under Maurice, c 580, but fully implemented by Heraclius;s grandson c 650 AD).
The resulting Government and Military Unit was known as the "Theme". The Eastern Empire (What most Historians referred to as the Byzantine Empire, through till its fall to the Turks in 1453, always called itself the "Roman Republic"
thus became the first "Feudal" society. Troops and Peasants were viewed as one and the same, thus Commanders took care of their "men" by taking care of the peasants in their Theme. After the Arab Conquest you do NOT have situations like that of the Invasion of Italy by the Goths in 410, where the invading army ended up stronger as it marched up and down Italy as Roman Peasants joined its ranks, for working with barbarians who would look after them, was better then being starved to death by their landlords who they had to pay "rent" to even when they was nothing to pay the rent with.
Yes, the Late Roman Empire was much like today's society, the 1% owning everything, while the 99% have to do all the work. This can best be seen in Egypt. When the Persians took Egypt in the 590s, it was the first time Rome had NOT ruled Egypt since the time of Cleopatra. I read one place that all of the land of Egypt was owned by less then a dozen people by the time of the Persian Conquest. Persia refused to recognize those rights of ownership and gave the land to new owners. Being new owners they did NOT "need" as much as the long time Roman Owners so the peasants ended up with more of their own production then they had had in several hundred years. When Herculitus defeated the Persians, one of the condition was the return of Syria, Palestine and Egypt back to Rome. Those dozen or so Roman Owners reappeared and demanded not only the rent do that year, but all of the rent due to them for the years of Persian Occupation.
Such demands for rent payment, occurred in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, When an Area had been cleared of Viet Cong by US Force, the US Forces were relieved by elements of the Army of the Republic Of Vietnam (ARVN, South Vietnam's Army), ARVN's primary mission to to help the landlords who owned the land the peasant's worked to collect all rent do. This included rent due that year, and all of the rent due during the years of Viet Cong control. This was one of the reasons the War was lost, the Vietnamese peasants had greater rights to the land that they worked under the Viet Cong then under the Government of South Vietnam AND the main problem was NOT the Government of South Vietnam but that that Government would support the "Rights" of the Landlords to their "Rents".
I bring up Vietnam for it shows how Egypt's peasants were being treated during the time period between the Last Roman-Persian War and the Arab Conquest. The Egyptian Peasants started to call their landlords "Tyrants" do to this demand, and the Roman Government supported the Roman Landlords over the Peasants of Egyptians (Who were also Roman Citizens under Roman Law). Egypt would stay Majority Christian til the Crusades, but supported their Moslem Overlords against the Government of Constantinople for the Moslem wanted less money from them then did the private landlords that had the support of the Government of Constantinople.
Similar situations had occurred in Italy starting in the early 500s where the Gothic Rulers of Italy implemented Land reforms. This made the peasants of Italy supportive of the Goths and when Justinian (c 530) went to war to regain Italy for the Roman Empire, such peasants supported their Germanic overlords NOT the Roman Government. When the Goths were finally defeated, the peasants behaved themselves till the Lombard invaded c 580 AD, and then supported the Lombards, who managed to hold onto Italy till the Frank Pepin (father of Charlemagne) conquered them c 750 AD(, Pepin made no efforts to reinstate any former landlord to ownership of their lands, thus the Peasants supported him and his son, Charlemagne.
The Vandals had taken Carthage c 450 AD, and implemented similar land reforms starting about 600. The result was overwhelming support for the government of the Vandals, even through the peasant retain their Roman Citizenship and Catholic Religion, while the Vandals became Arrians. In both the case of Italy and North Africa, Justinian moved against them on the urging of the Roman Elite who were the landlords of those areas and the one losing their source of income as the Goths (and later the Lombards) and Vandals implemented Land Reform.
Justinian ended up bankrupting his government in his effort to restore the Roman Empire AND not accept the land reforms the various barbarian rulers had implemented throughout the Western Empire after 450 AD. Thus by 600 the Eastern Empire had its back against the wall and faced destruction, but it had been forced back into the area where do to its poorest of its people and soil, the Roman Elite had just refused to buy land i.e. the area with the least amount of land controlled by the Roman Elite AND where the peasants had the most control over their own production.
This combination, of needing to raise an Army, no longing having access to huge shortage of wealth from the peasants of Egypt, and the Western Empire force the Late Roman Empire to become the Feudal Byzantine Empire. The Empire needed the support of the peasants and the only way to get that support was to guarantee them their land. That meant cutting support for any claim by the Roman Elite as to not only land outside the Empire, but also inside the Empire.
The Byzantine Empire did this by merging its Military and Civilian Governmental units into one, the theme. That merger also included the obligation to protect the peasants from any invaders, i.e. if someone invaded you theme, the commander of the Theme had to NOT only defeat that invader but try to make the peasants as whole as good be done. Failure to defend the peasants meant lost of command of the Theme. i.e. it became TREASON not to protect the Peasants.
Now, Western Europe did this as to the Barbarian invaders themselves, but always made deals with the old Roman Elites. Except for the Vandals and the Goths, all Germanic Invaders of the period 300-480 were DEFEATED. If Defeated after 400, such invaders were settled in areas of Peasants revolts to help the Roman Elite put down the Peasants. Thus the Barbarians had a Feudal view as to themselves and their soldiers, but not to the Roman Peasants in the 400s, but by the end of the 400s the peasants of the Roman Empire and the Germanic Invaders started to merge and become one. The old Roman Elite complained about this to the Emperor in Constantinople, but there was NOT much the Eastern Empire could do about this merger. This merger lead to movement of land reforms that the Eastern Empire did respond to under Justinian. The long term effect of Justinian's re-conquest was to bankrupt his Empire and turn the remaining peasants within his Empire against him. Thus you see the Lombards, Slavs and Persians all move in on the Empire after Justinian's death for he had NOT addressed the Empire's main weakness, a lack of support for the Empire among the lower classes do to a refusal to address the problem of to much wealth concentrated in the Roman Elite.
Now, Charlemagne managed to get an Empire together, but under Frankish rules that require the division of any property among the sons of the deceased. This formation barely survived him (Charlemagne also lead an Army that was paid by loot, thus his empire started to collapse as soon as he had no one else to conquer and loot. with no one to loot, his army could not be paid and dissolved). Around 1000 AD, the Saxons under Otto I decided to revive Charlemagne;s empire but this time by adopting Feudalism as it had evolved in Greece since Heraculis time. Otto decided to call his "Themeic" (a name he did not use, instead used the term "Kingdom" or "Dukedome" and named the rulers of these units Kings, if outside his Imperial Borders, or Dukes, if within his Imperial Borders (THus Hungary, Poland and France had "Kings" but Austria, Brandenburg etc were "Dukes" . All were viewed as part of the "Western Empire" but the Kingdom of Germany and Italy were viewed as being the Kingdoms of the Emperor.
Further down you had Counts (or barons. baron being the Germanic Name for the Latin derived "Count" . Each County was ruled by a Count (This is where we get the term County from). Below the County you had knights shares and other Feudal rights, at the bottom you had the peasants.
When Otto I implemented full Feudalism to his Empire, the Empire was being attacked by three groups. First the Arabs from North African, The Arab Conquest had finished around 750 and had been an Empire built on loot to pay the army and like all such army went into decline when the Empire had to place else to expand. Thus by 900 North Africa had broken from the Caliph in Baghdad and were raiding most of Southern Europe. Also by 900 the Hungarians had moved into what is now call the Hungarian plain. The Hungarians are the last horse migrants from the Steppes into Europe and were viewed as the best horsemen of the time period. The Hungarians raided throughout Europe from that center, their raided as far west as France. And lets not forget the Vikings, whose raids started about 800 and continued till the 900s.
Otto I solved the problem caused by all three of these invaders by embracing Feudalism. Prior to Otto I it was common for the landlords of areas of the Western Empire to leave when an area was raided and then come back and demand their rent. After Otto I embrace of Feudalism, the Dukes, Counts and Knights would be guilty of treason for NOT protecting the peasants and would lose their rights to the land. This was later embraced by France, Spain, and England as a response not the Viking, Hungarian and Moslem raids. By 1000 AD the embrace of Feudalism had made Western Europe so strong that given the Middle Age Warm Period Western Europe could support troops going to the Mid East for the First time since late Roman Imperial days.
Yes, Feudalism was successful, but like a lot of successful things, its success lead to its downfall. As societies aged the elites demanded that various duties imposed on them by the terms of Feudalism be lifted so they can have more freedom. In many ways this lifeing of duties was opposed by the Church AND the Peasants (The Church acting as a way the peasants could express their objections to the change). By the 1600s the Middle Class had emerged, these were "peasants" as that term was understood in the 1300-1600, but had something called money. They were willing to give up their Feudal duties for they saw them as restrictions on what they can do (this included the right to fire someone who was your employee for any or no reason, something FORBIDDEN under Feudalism).
What the rising middle class wanted was freedom from the obligation feudal rules imposed on them (and by Middle Class I mean that part of the population excluding the top 1%, who are the ruling elite, and the next 2 % who tend to be hanger on, the counts, knights ect of the feudal system but the next 10% of the population in terms of Wealth, the 87% of the population stayed peasants).
Thus the old rules that protected the bottom 90% of the population were found to be a "burden" by the raising Middle Class and they were the main advocate for ending Feudalism. They then picked up all of the "problems" of Feudalism as justification for ending Feudalism. This was opposed by many peasants, thus to took centuries to end all of the feudal requirements in the law. For example, it was only in the mid 1800s that employment became "At Will" instead of one year in duration and all Leases were no longer presumed to be one year in duration but the modern "Month to Month" concept.
Many elite refused to perform their obligations but still demanded their rights of the peasant below them. This was always a problem under Feudalism, especially when the King and others on the top refused to enforce those obligations (this was one of the reason for the French Revolution and the reign of terror, the Reign of Terror hit those areas of France where the elites had stopped doing their feudal duties, but did NOT occur where these duties were still being done). The French King had permitted his nobles to get out of their Feudal Duties in exchange for support of the Government, thus the Feudal requirement that the King protect the Peasants from the Nobles disappeared and lead to the French Revolution where such rights were changed to direct ownership of property rights).
Feudalism had a logic that worked during rough time periods, but once Feudalism had solved the problem society was facing, the elite wanted to get out of the obligations Feudalism imposed on them. The reason was simple, the ruling elite wanted to go back to how the Ancient Romans viewed themselves, the elite entitled to their income based on the fact of who and they own no obligations to anyone based on who they are. Feudalism rejected both of those concept. Under Feudalism you were entitled to certains "Rights" but those "Rights" in turned required you to do certain "obligations". Under Feudalism there were no Rights NOT tied in with some obligation.
As I said since the Middle Ages the Ruling Elite have adopted a policy of changing Feudal rights to ownership rights. i.e Rights with Obligations to one of just Rights. i.e .Right of Ownership subject to duties to the peasants, to one of just right of ownership and the peasants are on their own. Thus Feudalism was a working system and could even work today, if we were willing to enforce the elite to do what they should be doing. In the 800-1200 period, the kings had the power and the will to remove any Noble who refused to protect their peasants. after about 1200 the King became one with the Nobles and wanted to max from the peasants without giving the peasants anything.
Under the change from Feudalism to Capitalism Peasants revolts were common, you see them in the 1200 till the 1800s. In many ways such failed peasants revolts were a check on the the ruling elite, it forced the "King" to least address the problems of the peasants. Thus such peasants revolts ended up slowing down the switch to Capitalism, but the middle Class and the Ruling 1% saw more and more money in Capitalism so their freed themselves of their obligations under Feudalism and then made the claim such "Freedom" also benefited the peasants, for now instead of working for their feudal lord, they had the "Freedom" to starve to death while their former Lord, hired others at lesser pay to do the work the peasants used to have to do (and get feed for his effort).
In many ways the destruction of Feudalism was tied in with a decision to break up the peasants as a single group. Under Feudalism what the peasants needed had to be addressed even at the highest part of society, under capitalism, unless the peasants go into revolt, the higher parts of society ignores them.
Just some comment that I wish we had a Feudal Society, at least everyone would know who is suppose to take care of them if things go bad.
After this, therefore because of this...? 
You think prisons had pillow-top mattresses and tea time back in the good old days? Sing Sing, Alcatraz, San Quentin. Or maybe you're pining for the days of the chain gang, when America really had some compassion. You're always pining for the 1930s, when FDR made America a paradise and everyone was happy. That America never existed, bub ... and trying to fix things today by appealing to some nonexistent historical past is not just futile, it's kind of dangerous. Facts matter.
