Winamp & Shoutcast Forums - Was the past always so golden?

Once in a while, when contemplating on the past of these very boards, I confess, I sometimes thought that the past was somehow, better. But then, I turn to Machiavelli for guidance. His keen insight and pragmatic style told me:

Men always, but not always with good reason, praise bygone days and criticize the present, and so partial are they to the past that they not only admire past ages the knowledge of which has come down to them in written records, but also, when they grow old, what they remember having seen in their youth. And, when this view is wrong, as it usually is, there are, I am convinced, various causes to which the mistake may be due.

The first of them, I think, this. The whole truth about olden times is not grasped, since what redounds to their discredit is often passed over in silence, whereas what is likely to make them appear glorious is pompously recounted in all its details. For so obsequious are most writers to the fortune of conquerors that, in order to make their victories seem glorious, they not only exaggerate their own valourous deeds, but also magnify the exploits of the enemy, so that anyone born afterwards either in the conquering or in the conquered province may find cause to marvel at such men and such times, and is bound, in short, to admire them and to feel affection for them.

Another reason is that, since it is either through fear or through envy that men come to hate things, in the case of the past the two most powerful incentives for hating it are lacking, since the past cannot hurt you nor give you cause for envy. Whereas it is otherwise with events in which you play a part and which you see with your own eyes, for of these you have an intimate knowledge, are in touch with every detail, and in them find, mingled with the good, also much which displeases you; so that you cannot help thinking them far inferior to the remote past, even though in fact the present may be much more deserving of praise and reknown. I am not here referring to what pertains to the arts, for in themselves they have so much lustre that time can scarce take away or add much to the glory which they deserve. I am speaking of things appertaining to human life and human customs, the evidence for whose merit is not so clear to one's eyes.

My answer is, then, that it is true there exists this habit of praising the past and criticizing the present, and not always true that to do so is a mistake, for it must be admitted that sometimes such a judgement is valid because, since human affairs are ever in a state of flux, they move either upwards or downwards. Thus one sees a city or province that has been endowed with a sound political constitution by some eminent man, thanks to its founder's virtue for a time go on steadily improving. Anyone born in such a state at such a time, is wrong if he gives more praise to the past than to the present, and his mistake will be due to the causes we have mentioned above. but those who are born in this city or province later on, when there has come a time in which it is on the decline and is deteriorating, will not then be in error.

Machiavelli in The Discourses, Preface to Book III, translation by Leslie J. Walker
I apologize for any typos, they are mine, not those of the editor of this particular edition of The Discourses.

So what do I think of the forums? I'm happy. Things don't always go exactly how I want them, but that's ok, because everyone is doing their own thing, in their own little corner of this vast realm. Same goes with the world at large. The past was bright, but the present is brilliant.