For me it comes down to two Countries The UK And France
I say France because England is terribly boring, Scotland is like Alabama, and no one cares about the Welsh.
The only good thing to come out of England was the Sunday fry up and my mum
France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy
Vive Le Francios
Vive Le Republique
I thought you were going to say Texas.
Is this supposed to be a real discussion or just anoither way of SFTS to express his France fetish?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Can it not be both?
Is this supposed to be a real discussion or just anoither way of SFTS to express his France fetish?
From Rosseau to Montisqeau the French have seamlessly synthesisized the wonder and the pratical of life. A 300 page romance from Flaubert has as much real world application as it does surreal wonderment.
The British on the other hand are being miserable, drinking tea in the rain, wondering about what it all means. Its all been down hill since Aqunias. They need to learn to take it all in instead of wondering why its there.
Boom, disscussion
I would say the UK because it was the single most dominant superpower that there has ever been at any point in history, and at a time of rampant globalisation. And in addition to that it gave the world the modern day superpower - the USA.
You could maybe even argue that the USA is truer to British values than Britain. Heck the USA was born from a rebellion that was out of loyalty to a distinctly British strain of values and political thought at a time when the British state was itself trampling on them.
I would also suggest that Britain's predisposition towards more moderate and stable forms of government has allowed its political ideals to have a bigger impact on the world today than those of the much more reactionary and radical French.
I mean, Locke laid the foundations for modern day liberal democracy which is so dominant that some people consider it to be the "end of history" (although I don't personally agree with that). Whereas the likes of Rousseau seem to have created more of a framework for the totalitarianism of the last century.
Of course this could be interpreted as my own bias as a Briton and dismissed as hubris. Of course my country v your country debates are often silly, but I think the reason for what I have written above is due to Britain's quite unique, isolated geoplitical situation.
I would also ask Strike in what way is Scotland like Alabama, and remind him that Northern Ireland exists. Of course, he is right that nobody cares about the Welsh. Nothing interesting happens there, they haven't really contributed anything to the world.
On the modern world? The USA. From Coca Cola, Mac Donalds, to Apple, to Windows, to Afghanistan to Iraq, to Internet, to Wall Street to War on Drugs: it is all made or broken in the USA.
Im with Strike on this one. To put it in a nutshell. France has given us what we desire. UK what is essential, US what we do not need and Germany what we do not want. Thats about it.
Modern World? I'd say the USSR.
If we take modern as "starting with the reformation" like usually in history, I would guess Britain, especially since the US is an offshoot. Along with much of the world.
Originally Posted by :
Penicillin was discovered by a scot, a bunch of economists were scottish too...I think a bunch of the early sporting institutions were formed in britain...And there are more famous german philosophers than french...the puritans believed that women couldn't conceive without having an orgasm...actually I don't think anything from your list is mainly french...
France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Yes, but of course. I believe House Music originated in the Languedoc-Roussillon region as well. And why oh why do they call it Mississippi Delta Blues when everyone knows it came from Gascony?
France on the other hand gave us [...] rock & roll
Germany.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Actually, the orgasm this was a common belief from antiquity until the 19th century, at which point doctors starting advocating female circumcision to reduce your wife's libido.
If we take modern as "starting with the reformation" like usually in history, I would guess Britain, especially since the US is an offshoot. Along with much of the world.
Penicillin was discovered by a scot, a bunch of economists were scottish too...I think a bunch of the early sporting institutions were formed in britain...And there are more famous german philosophers than french...the puritans believed that women couldn't conceive without having an orgasm...actually I don't think anything from your list is mainly french...
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
If by that you mean "in the last hundred years" then I would have to dissagree - the major ramification of WWI were the decline of the British, French and Russian states and these were US policy objectives. It was achived by sitting out most of the war and only coming in to "save the day" once Britian and France agreed to relax trade franchises, thereby gimping their economies for the next forty years.
Germany.
Germany was just a patsy.
What do we mean by modern??
If were talking modern as in who impacted the 20th century the most then hands down it's America fullstop no arguements end of.
Cinema, television, computers, nukes, coke, big macs, pepsi the internet and the moon landings and thats just technology and stuff
America has influenced through it's great writers, artists, thinkers, actors and movie directors.
American culture is now world culture when family guy is on the telly it is full of prob 80-90% pure american jokes purely because American popculture is the worlds popculture.
We shouldnt be even able to laugh at half it but we do because even here in Ireland we have heard of Bo an Luke or Uncle Jesse but 99% of America has not a clue who father ted is
When I said Germany, I did so based on the criteria given above, from the 1500's and up.
My answer is still Germany.
Even though I would've loved it to be France...
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
I'm interested in hearing these numbers...
...And there are more famous german philosophers than french...
(in all fairness, I should point out that Rousseau is technically Swiss)
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I find this analysis most...disagreeable. Heck, if the US wanted the European powers to harm eachother as much as possible, it would have been far wiser to just stay out entirely. That might have given the Germans the opportunity to exploit their success of the 1918 offensive; which they couldn't in real life, partly due to the American additions of manpower.
If by that you mean "in the last hundred years" then I would have to dissagree - the major ramification of WWI were the decline of the British, French and Russian states and these were US policy objectives. It was achived by sitting out most of the war and only coming in to "save the day" once Britian and France agreed to relax trade franchises, thereby gimping their economies for the next forty years.
Germany was just a patsy.
...
As for my own answer, assuming "modern" means everything after the 18th century...I'm leaning towards Luxembourg.
I'll think you'll find most actions have roots in synthesized ideas that on some parts go generations back.
If there was a country not defined by borders but shared knowledge and actions then it would have to be the state of modern technology. From the green revolution which two/thirds of the modern population relies upon to live (the modern farming revolution which fixes nitrates in the soil), to broadcast communications devices, to transport, to networking.
The impact for the modern world is what we are on at the moment. It isn't a country it is the tearing down of borders in the form of the internet. Of which there is many parents, not least the CERN and DARPA scientists.
So for influence not look at which country, look at which intellectual disciplines have delivered us the modern world.
Terrorists would have themselves and us huddle in caves looking at the shadows on the cave walls. Modern engineers and scientists would have us exploring the rugged world around us, feeding the hungry, seeing the pre-born with ultra sound, curing our ills, allowing us to talk with our loved ones, allowing us to fly in the modern miracle of a jet, and of course to converse with like and dislike minds around the world.
Don't curl up and whimper for old miracles. Learn science and make a new miracle happen.
UK begat colonies, colonies begat Taxes. Ergo, UK FTW. :2thumbsup:
I have read somewhere that a lot of terrorists have first been trained as engineers. Something about the fact that engineering may be less subject to interpretation which they like to see in their religion.
Surely it was Belgium.
We invented Gueuze, Lambic, Spéciale Belge, Trappistenbier, Oud Belgisch,... How many styles and sorts of beers did your country invent?
We gave you waffles as well
We invented the worlds most sexy musical instrument: the saxophone.
We invented surrealism.
We invented a new political systems: both the 'no government system' and the 'a government or five for every inhabitant system'
We invented modern asphalt roads. Who doesn't have those ruining the countryside these days?
We invented CFK's and hence the hole in the Ozon Layer. How about world impact there?
We invented plastic and hence trash.
In other words we ruined the world you live in, yet made you capable of enjoying life at the same time.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Gah, this statement is its own refutation. Either Britain's history is one of harmonious, gradual political development towards modern democracy (as some romanticists claim, in the vein of Burke) or it's a history of the lowly Anglo-Saxon (or scottish, if you prefer) commoner with unalienable, god-given rights that he has to guard constantly against his own government (as some other romanticists claim). Can't have it both ways.
You could maybe even argue that the USA is truer to British values than Britain. Heck the USA was born from a rebellion that was out of loyalty to a distinctly British strain of values and political thought at a time when the British state was itself trampling on them.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Locke's ideas centre around the notion of the government and the people being almost entirely seperable entities. As long as the government refrains from interfering with some supposedly inalienable rights, property foremost, it should be tolerated. If it does interfere, then the people have a just cause for overthrowing it. There's an extremely large gap between Locke's philosphy (as enlightened as it was, for his days) and modern liberal democracy.
I would also suggest that Britain's predisposition towards more moderate and stable forms of government has allowed its political ideals to have a bigger impact on the world today than those of the much more reactionary and radical French.
I mean, Locke laid the foundations for modern day liberal democracy which is so dominant that some people consider it to be the "end of history" (although I don't personally agree with that). Whereas the likes of Rousseau seem to have created more of a framework for the totalitarianism of the last century.
Rousseau is Swiss :clown: but yeah, his ideas are not entirely compatible with liberal democracy as we know it. To be fair though, in order to establish a link between him and totalitarian ideologies you'd have to cherry-pick parts of his political message.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Indeed. Perfidious briton! :snobby:
Of course this could be interpreted as my own bias
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
It is, after all, what every powerful nation has done to its powerful neighbours since time began. Brtiain supported Portugal and Spain against Napoleon not only because Napoleon was the aggressor and his troops wer especially keen on rape and pillage, but also because Britain did not want a large power Bloc in Europe. Yay EU.
I find this analysis most...disagreeable. Heck, if the US wanted the European powers to harm eachother as much as possible, it would have been far wiser to just stay out entirely. That might have given the Germans the opportunity to exploit their success of the 1918 offensive; which they couldn't in real life, partly due to the American additions of manpower.
America only entered the War, both times, when German/Axis actions became intollerable and directly harmed American interests. In both cases it was recognised that this was deliberate, it was resented at the time and has been ever since. Further, the US required certain concessions from Britain and France before entering both wars, and in order to keep the subsequent peace.
Hell, you guys are always banging on about America doing this that and the other for oil, why it so hard to believe it did the same for iron or coal?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Leaving asside that "Germany" did not exist, how so?
When I said Germany, I did so based on the criteria given above, from the 1500's and up.
My answer is still Germany.
Even though I would've loved it to be France...
As far as I can see even those post-1500 innovations Germany actually came up with are heavily forshadowed elsewhere, including Lutheranism.
I suppose the printing press came from Mainz, but otherwise the cupboard fairly bare.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
And so are things that other nations came up with.
As far as I can see even those post-1500 innovations Germany actually came up with are heavily forshadowed elsewhere, including Lutheranism.
Flying into space and onto the moon was heavily influenced by german rocket scientists, supersonic flight was made possible by looking at german swept wing designs etc.
Einstein was a german...
the mp3 format is more or less from Germany.
Blitzkrieg is a german invention.
World Wars are a german invention.
Schadenfreude is a german invention. ~;)
And noone said it's just about inventions, what has more impact, inventing the vacuum cleaner or starting two bloody world wars that throw Europe into a period of long-lasting peace?
I'm not sure one can just say Germany though, culturally the US has a HUGE impact on the western world as it is now.
The winner may also be whoever re-invented concrete after the romans...
A lot depends, as usual, on what you weigh more, is having had an empire more of an influence than spreading McDonald's?
I wouldn't know. :shrug:
I would like to note that the British invented the Internet, not the Americans.
Tim Berners Lee.
Americans.. thinking they invent everything!
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
Well I'm pretty sure I did not mention anything to do with these competing narratives on the history of democracy in Britain. But I'll bite... I would regard both the "gradual, peaceful transition" and "ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution" viewpoints to be more mythology than anything.
Gah, this statement is its own refutation. Either Britain's history is one of harmonious, gradual political development towards modern democracy (as some romanticists claim, in the vein of Burke) or it's a history of the lowly Anglo-Saxon (or scottish, if you prefer) commoner with unalienable, god-given rights that he has to guard constantly against his own government (as some other romanticists claim). Can't have it both ways.
But at the same time, mythology is central to a nation's character and values. The Anglo-Saxons didn't have democracy as we would recognise it today, but the myth of their style of governance inspired the Puritans and with them the likes of Locke to develop the kind of theories we would recognise.
Likewise the mythology of the harmonious nature of British politics with the Glorious aka bloodless Revolution etc came to be seen as part of the national character and this fact may (just speculating) have something to do with Britain's historic aversion to extremist movements.
The myth might not be real but when people believe it then it can have a real impact.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
Well, the economic realities were different in Locke's time but his fundamental ideas like separating the judicial/legislative/executive branches of government are relevant today and obviously shaped the American constitution.
Locke's ideas centre around the notion of the government and the people being almost entirely seperable entities. As long as the government refrains from interfering with some supposedly inalienable rights, property foremost, it should be tolerated. If it does interfere, then the people have a just cause for overthrowing it. There's an extremely large gap between Locke's philosphy (as enlightened as it was, for his days) and modern liberal democracy.
And as for overthrowing the government, that right is just as real today as in Locke's. But our lives are pretty good so we don't tend to bother.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
It's less about cherry-picking particular points and more about looking at the spirit of his message as a whole. Much of what he says is based on his idea of the "general will" which in his mind the government has a duty to enforce over the individual.
Rousseau is Swiss :clown: but yeah, his ideas are not entirely compatible with liberal democracy as we know it. To be fair though, in order to establish a link between him and totalitarian ideologies you'd have to cherry-pick parts of his political message.
Not to mention the fact that he thought that democracy should not take place at a higher level than would would today be considered a small town.
His ideas were certainly radical, but not very relevant.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
You're American, right? Once upon a time you lot were getting very angry when you were being denied your "rights as Englishmen"...
Indeed. Perfidious briton! :snobby:
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Wrong.
You're American, right?
PS: At the time, plenty of Britons supported the colonies. There's this lovely exchange of letters between a Scot in the employ of the colonies, and another Scot whose estate just got pillaged. The first apologises, the second expresses his moral support for the revolution.
Also, American independence was fought for by the French, bankrolled & supplied by the Dutch & French, planned in Paris.
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Well now I just look silly. Apologies to Kralizec, I thought he was rvg, same avatar!
Wrong.
And yeah I realise there were loyalists in the colonies*, IIRC Lemur once said the patriot-loyalist-uninterested divide was roughly 40-30-30. But the patriots won and that fact shaped the vision of American nationhood today.
Because let's face it, the USA as a nation was created by WASP's, for WASP's. I think it is comical how the moderate left in America appeals to the constitution to support their own modern ideas of secularism and civil rights.
Those rights were intended for Englishman - slavery is constitutional. Religious freedom did not mean it was removed from the political sphere - official state churches are constitutional. Hence why both the above continued to exist when the constitution was drafted, and were entrenched by it.
I realise this interpretation of the constitution puts me in line with the likes of the Black Guerrila Family, but you've got to appreciate the historical context.
As for the French and American independence, surely that alliance was more strategic than ideological?
EDIT: Just realise you said Britons, not Americans. But I'll leave my rant.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Not entirely: the American independence was something of a cause célèbre, too. There were French volunteers who joined the forces of the colonies, some of whom were of real political significance in France, too. For example: Lafayette.
As for the French and American independence, surely that alliance was more strategic than ideological?
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
post 1500s or else i would agree especially in the west.
Rome? Nobody?
If I was to list off the ways that Rome has had an impact on your life, the list would be endless.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Exactly. The English-Russian axis has been instrumental in preventing the world from being overrun by the corruption that is France and Germany. We don't care about your Montesqieus and your Kants. We just want to eat pies and drink vodka. And such is our legacy.
Can it not be both?
From Rosseau to Montisqeau the French have seamlessly synthesisized the wonder and the pratical of life. A 300 page romance from Flaubert has as much real world application as it does surreal wonderment.
The British on the other hand are being miserable, drinking tea in the rain, wondering about what it all means. Its all been down hill since Aqunias. They need to learn to take it all in instead of wondering why its there.
Boom, disscussion
USA of course. Germany comes second.
Originally Posted by Husar:
@Husar That would be French.:smug2:
The winner may also be whoever re-invented concrete after the romans...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete
Originally Posted by Centurion1:
Where does it say in the OP post 1500s?
post 1500s or else i would agree especially in the west.
From what I've been able understand it is which country had greatest influence on the modern world, it doesn't neccesarily has to be a modern country...
The biggest impact on what? On culture? Politics? Technology? Warfare? Just in general?
I would have to say the US, not because I am an American, but because the US has contributed more to these four things than anything else.
On the culture side, not only does the most powerful country in the world (the US) obviously have US culture, but everywhere in the world, even in Africa and China US culture is becoming more and more important. All throughout Europe and parts of Asia, people's dress, television, music, food, vehicles, etc, etc are either American or heavily influenced by America. Even things that originated in other countries, America has taken and put their own twist on so as to make them often an entirely different thing, which the entire world then goes on to imitate.
As far as politics go, not only has the American experiment produced the most powerful country in human history (look at the power the US had over the entire world at the end of the second World War). Never in human history has there been a country that in the entire world there was no equal to in power. Rome, China, the Incans, etc, etc. They were all powerful in their regions, but none of them had the world power that America has. The American political system has a lot to do with that. Our constitution and political conventions have been imitated across the globe. Heck, we were even an inspiration for the many French revolutionaries.
As far as tech goes, whether it is what America has invented, improved, or simply put into wide-scale use, American technology has changed the entire world and made possible things that would never have been possible before the US. Medicine, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, weapon systems, communication, etc, etc, etc., in the modern world has all been shaped by the US.
Warfare has been more advanced by the Americans and Germans than by anyone else in the modern world, and by the Americans even more than the Germans. More change in warfare has happened since America came into being than in the 2000 years before. Right before the Civil War, the United States was so powerful (despite what the snotty Euros of the time thought), that it could have rolled any country in the world. Our firearm technology alone was so many worlds ahead of the rest of the worlds, that they would not have stood a chance. Our training and organization was so much better, that Sheridan laughed at European cavalry when he saw it. Since then the United States has become even more powerful compared to the rest of the world, reaching its highest point right after WWII when it had the world in the palm of its hands and could have done nearly anything it wanted.
Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation. ~;)
Originally Posted by :
Oh dear where to start.
Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation.
Who invented the steam engine?
Who invented the tank?
Who invented the jet engine?
Who invented television?
Who invented the radio?
Who invented the computer?
Which country had the first all steel ship?
Who invented cordite?
Who invented scuba gear?
Who invented depth charges?
Who invented the fax machine?
Who invented the internal combustion engine?
Who invented locomotives?
Who invented light bulbs?
Who discovered penicillin?
Who invented the periscope?
Who invented radar?
Who invented shrapnel?
Who invented HUD?
Who invented Chobham armour?
Make an educated guess!
:blank2:
Originally Posted by Vuk:
A lot of that is British tech, or British political thought.
The biggest impact on what? On culture? Politics? Technology? Warfare? Just in general?
I would have to say the US, not because I am an American, but because the US has contributed more to these four things than anything else.
On the culture side, not only does the most powerful country in the world (the US) obviously have US culture, but everywhere in the world, even in Africa and China US culture is becoming more and more important. All throughout Europe and parts of Asia, people's dress, television, music, food, vehicles, etc, etc are either American or heavily influenced by America. Even things that originated in other countries, America has taken and put their own twist on so as to make them often an entirely different thing, which the entire world then goes on to imitate.
As far as politics go, not only has the American experiment produced the most powerful country in human history (look at the power the US had over the entire world at the end of the second World War). Never in human history has there been a country that in the entire world there was no equal to in power. Rome, China, the Incans, etc, etc. They were all powerful in their regions, but none of them had the world power that America has. The American political system has a lot to do with that. Our constitution and political conventions have been imitated across the globe. Heck, we were even an inspiration for the many French revolutionaries.
As far as tech goes, whether it is what America has invented, improved, or simply put into wide-scale use, American technology has changed the entire world and made possible things that would never have been possible before the US. Medicine, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, weapon systems, communication, etc, etc, etc., in the modern world has all been shaped by the US.
Warfare has been more advanced by the Americans and Germans than by anyone else in the modern world, and by the Americans even more than the Germans. More change in warfare has happened since America came into being than in the 2000 years before. Right before the Civil War, the United States was so powerful (despite what the snotty Euros of the time thought), that it could have rolled any country in the world. Our firearm technology alone was so many worlds ahead of the rest of the worlds, that they would not have stood a chance. Our training and organization was so much better, that Sheridan laughed at European cavalry when he saw it. Since then the United States has become even more powerful compared to the rest of the world, reaching its highest point right after WWII when it had the world in the palm of its hands and could have done nearly anything it wanted.
Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation. ~;)
The American constituion is clearly built on British (primarily Scottish) thinking, taking Rome as a practical model. American dress - I'll give you that one for the lower classes - otherwise fashion has been pretty staic since the war. Ties and turn down collars have barely changed and the average suit would be as recognisable in 1940 as 2012.
Technology, well that's all British. Where America has been a big driver is mass production, but that's mostly because of America's economic might. A hundred years ago Britain did the same with rail and steam powered ships.
If you look at the American military, well the "New Model Army" was British, and even if America had supperior cavalry iun 1860, well who cared by that point? Only cavalrymen. I read somewhere that American cavalry sometimes didn't bother to carry their sabres, because they so raely used them. On the other hand, if you look at British line Infantry, they have been supperior for most of the period from 1640's onwards, during the Napolionic wars they fired four to five rounds to every other army's three, were the first to equip rifle regiments, and during WWI the "Tommys" were so accurate with their SMLE's that the Germans thought they were under machine gun fire.
Although, though in terms of military organisation the Prussians come out on top for the General Staff, the doctrine of keeping reserves and being the first to equip whole units with assault rifles at least 20 years before anyone else.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
@Husar That would be French.:smug2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete
No, it would be the British, because we invented Portland cement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement
You need that for concrete. Also, I note you linked to "reinforced concrete", the Romans didn't reinforce their concrete.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
he invented an easier way to use the internet so that the networks became more like the internet we recognise but the the yanks had already laid the copper wire and networked the computers.
I would like to note that the British invented the Internet, not the Americans.
Tim Berners Lee.
Americans.. thinking they invent everything!
Originally Posted by Vuk:
There is so much nonsense in this post, that i cant wrap my head around to decide where to start debunking it.:shrug:
The biggest impact on what? On culture? Politics? Technology? Warfare? Just in general?
I would have to say the US, not because I am an American, but because the US has contributed more to these four things than anything else.
On the culture side, not only does the most powerful country in the world (the US) obviously have US culture, but everywhere in the world, even in Africa and China US culture is becoming more and more important. All throughout Europe and parts of Asia, people's dress, television, music, food, vehicles, etc, etc are either American or heavily influenced by America. Even things that originated in other countries, America has taken and put their own twist on so as to make them often an entirely different thing, which the entire world then goes on to imitate.
As far as politics go, not only has the American experiment produced the most powerful country in human history (look at the power the US had over the entire world at the end of the second World War). Never in human history has there been a country that in the entire world there was no equal to in power. Rome, China, the Incans, etc, etc. They were all powerful in their regions, but none of them had the world power that America has. The American political system has a lot to do with that. Our constitution and political conventions have been imitated across the globe. Heck, we were even an inspiration for the many French revolutionaries.
As far as tech goes, whether it is what America has invented, improved, or simply put into wide-scale use, American technology has changed the entire world and made possible things that would never have been possible before the US. Medicine, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, weapon systems, communication, etc, etc, etc., in the modern world has all been shaped by the US.
Warfare has been more advanced by the Americans and Germans than by anyone else in the modern world, and by the Americans even more than the Germans. More change in warfare has happened since America came into being than in the 2000 years before. Right before the Civil War, the United States was so powerful (despite what the snotty Euros of the time thought), that it could have rolled any country in the world. Our firearm technology alone was so many worlds ahead of the rest of the worlds, that they would not have stood a chance. Our training and organization was so much better, that Sheridan laughed at European cavalry when he saw it. Since then the United States has become even more powerful compared to the rest of the world, reaching its highest point right after WWII when it had the world in the palm of its hands and could have done nearly anything it wanted.
Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation. ~;)
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Portland cement was only a stop during the path to reinforced concrete, which is the modern concrete.
No, it would be the British, because we invented Portland cement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement
You need that for concrete. Also, I note you linked to "reinforced concrete", the Romans didn't reinforce their concrete.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
The thing is. If the question was, which Country will have the most impact on future world of lets say 100 years from now. The answer would be no brainer.USA, as it dominates the modern World, but if we are talking about the impact on modern World.We will have to look into the past to find answers. In that case US is not on the top, so does speak. :vanish:
Is there any doubt that people a few hundred years in the future who look back asking this question will say "USA"?
I'm not backing Vuk's post, but don't discount the American influence. Without a doubt we are up there with all the other superpowers of history, and in terms of global impact we certainly must be at or near the top by now.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
Cast iron is a far more important material than concrete and while casting is very ancient it was the Brits who pioneered its real development.
Portland cement was only a stop during the path to reinforced concrete, which is the modern concrete.
If you want to take industrial applications then the Yanks invented the idea of Just in Time, Lean Manufacturing and the assembly line.
It was America who pioneered the development of modern manufacturing practices due to the needs of WW2 basically Japan would never have developed the Toyata production system without US thinking
The yanks also pioneered jigs and fixtures enabling both mass production and interchangeable parts vital in today's industry.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Well we were kind of talking about concrete, werent we? Also interchangeable parts were invented by a Frenchman Honoré Blanc. :smug:
Your wasting you time man cast iron is a far more important material than concrete and while casting is very ancient it was the Brits who pioneered its real development.
If you want to take industrial applications then the Yanks invented the idea of Just in Time, Lean Manufacturing and the assembly line.
The yanks also pioneered jigs and fixtures enabling both mass production and interchangeable parts.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
No he dabbled in it Whitney actually made it a reality so the gong goes to the Yank
Well we were kind of talking about concrete, werent we? Also interchangeable parts were invented by a Frenchman Honoré Blanc. :smug:
It was the Jigs and Fixtures that were the key here for Whitney they allowed unskilled labour to manufacture parts and put them together later.
Blanc made one piece then he compared each piece off of that one to maintain quality and tolerence.
Whitney once he had his Jigs and fixtures could be assured his parts were all the same even if a drunk of the street made them.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
He invented it, period. :P You should really understand that without French we would be living in world of saggy breast´s, thus invention of bra = End of discussion, France reigns supreme.:2thumbsup:
No he dabbled in it Whitney actually made it a reality so the gong goes to the Yank
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Fair enough.
Well I'm pretty sure I did not mention anything to do with these competing narratives on the history of democracy in Britain. But I'll bite... I would regard both the "gradual, peaceful transition" and "ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution" viewpoints to be more mythology than anything.
But at the same time, mythology is central to a nation's character and values. The Anglo-Saxons didn't have democracy as we would recognise it today, but the myth of their style of governance inspired the Puritans and with them the likes of Locke to develop the kind of theories we would recognise.
Likewise the mythology of the harmonious nature of British politics with the Glorious aka bloodless Revolution etc came to be seen as part of the national character and this fact may (just speculating) have something to do with Britain's historic aversion to extremist movements.
The myth might not be real but when people believe it then it can have a real impact.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Hmm, I don't think Locke's ideas were particulary influential in regards to the concept "seperation of powers". Than honour is usually bestowed on Montesqieu; allthough he based his idea on some misguided perceptions of what Britian's system was like.
Well, the economic realities were different in Locke's time but his fundamental ideas like separating the judicial/legislative/executive branches of government are relevant today and obviously shaped the American constitution.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Not in so many words. Rousseau's concept of the General Will has a few internal problems. For example, he thinks that your will as a person is not necessarily the same as your "will" as a citizen; as the former is clouded by selfish motives, while the latter is rational and in fact the basis of the General Will. This has led some people to argue that it inspired totalitarian systems because it gives an excuse for governments to act against what appears to be the will of its subjects.
It's less about cherry-picking particular points and more about looking at the spirit of his message as a whole. Much of what he says is based on his idea of the "general will" which in his mind the government has a duty to enforce over the individual.
Not to mention the fact that he thought that democracy should not take place at a higher level than would would today be considered a small town.
In all fairness; Rousseau did say that the authority to interpret the general will, or legislative authority, could never be delegated to a smaller body (a.ka. representative democracy). That's the reason why he thought that democracy could only work in smaller entities, like Swiss cantons.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Well, not directly relevant. His legacy is largely that he furthered political philosphy by his radical proposals.
His ideas were certainly radical, but not very relevant.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
"You guys"?
It is, after all, what every powerful nation has done to its powerful neighbours since time began. Brtiain supported Portugal and Spain against Napoleon not only because Napoleon was the aggressor and his troops wer especially keen on rape and pillage, but also because Britain did not want a large power Bloc in Europe. Yay EU.
America only entered the War, both times, when German/Axis actions became intollerable and directly harmed American interests. In both cases it was recognised that this was deliberate, it was resented at the time and has been ever since. Further, the US required certain concessions from Britain and France before entering both wars, and in order to keep the subsequent peace.
Hell, you guys are always banging on about America doing this that and the other for oil, why it so hard to believe it did the same for iron or coal?
The idea that great powers generally follow policies meant to weaken others is true enough. I just never heard anybody allege that the USA tried to do this during WW1. Some facts:
- the USA tried to broker a peace as soon as the war started
- it did warn the belligerents that they should refrain from targetting merchant vessels
- until they did, there was never going to be enough support in the USA for intervention. Next thing, Germany sinks a bunch of USA merchant ships.
- before the USA entered the war, Germany tried to convince Mexico to declare war on the United States and annex its southern territories. By accident, the telegrams became public. The USA did not appreciate this.
I've never heard of French or British concessions to buy American assistance. But if there were any, it would not be unusual.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
He invented it, period. :P You should really understand that without French we would be living in world of saggy breast´s, thus invention of bra = End of discussion, France reigns supreme.:2thumbsup:
It's not enough to come up with or invent an idea.
No one claims that the greeks invented Steam Engines you have to develop the idea then refine it and finaly make something of it.
thats why it's no use claiming that some german invented the television before Logie Baird
Even with Britain's invention it is obvious that the television is in fact a US machine, US culture permeates it even though the American hardly make anymore a television worth buying.
Telly invented by Europeans but developed to it's fullest in America, would anyone understand the idea of a tv dinner in France would we even have said items if it was not for America.
Incidently that thumbs up your using while coming from earlier cultural writing and paintings has remained with us by way of American cinema and it's ideas of ancient rome and ww2 movies.
Too much of the debate on this thread is who made or wrote X down first, we should be asking who took X and made it there own or developed a culture around said things.
So it's USA USA USA USA USAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
All that talk reminds me just of saggy boobs.:painting:
It's not enough to come up with or invent an idea.
No one claims that the greeks invented Steam Engines you have to develop the idea then refine it and finaly make something of it.
thats why it's no use claiming that some german invented the television before Logie Baird
Even with Britain's invention it is obvious that the television is in fact a US machine, US culture permeates it even though the American hardly make anymore a television worth buying.
Telly invented by Europeans but developed to it's fullest in America, would anyone understand the idea of a tv dinner in France would we even have said items if it was not for America.
Incidently that thumbs up your using while coming from earlier cultural writing and paintings has remained with us by way of American cinema and it's ideas of ancient rome and ww2 movies.
Too much of the debate on this thread is who made or wrote X down first, we should be asking who took X and made it there own or developed a culture around said things.
So it's USA USA USA USA USAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
I dissagree, regular concrete is still used all the time, as a surface, as blocks. Reinforced concrete may be essential, but it's still just concrete with an iron bar in it.
Portland cement was only a stop during the path to reinforced concrete, which is the modern concrete.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Like i earlier mentioned, British have given us essential things, but concrete really does not do it for a person compared to boobs.:shy:
I dissagree, regular concrete is still used all the time, as a surface, as blocks. Reinforced concrete may be essential, but it's still just concrete with an iron bar in it.
Woops Nevermind.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
This is what I call a TryHard.
The biggest impact on what? On culture? Politics? Technology? Warfare? Just in general?I would have to say the US, not because I am an American, but because the US has contributed more to these four things than anything else. On the culture side, not only does the most powerful country in the world (the US) obviously have US culture, but everywhere in the world, even in Africa and China US culture is becoming more and more important. All throughout Europe and parts of Asia, people's dress, television, music, food, vehicles, etc, etc are either American or heavily influenced by America. Even things that originated in other countries, America has taken and put their own twist on so as to make them often an entirely different thing, which the entire world then goes on to imitate. As far as politics go, not only has the American experiment produced the most powerful country in human history (look at the power the US had over the entire world at the end of the second World War). Never in human history has there been a country that in the entire world there was no equal to in power. Rome, China, the Incans, etc, etc. They were all powerful in their regions, but none of them had the world power that America has. The American political system has a lot to do with that. Our constitution and political conventions have been imitated across the globe. Heck, we were even an inspiration for the many French revolutionaries. As far as tech goes, whether it is what America has invented, improved, or simply put into wide-scale use, American technology has changed the entire world and made possible things that would never have been possible before the US. Medicine, aircraft, vehicles, electronics, weapon systems, communication, etc, etc, etc., in the modern world has all been shaped by the US. Warfare has been more advanced by the Americans and Germans than by anyone else in the modern world, and by the Americans even more than the Germans. More change in warfare has happened since America came into being than in the 2000 years before. Right before the Civil War, the United States was so powerful (despite what the snotty Euros of the time thought), that it could have rolled any country in the world. Our firearm technology alone was so many worlds ahead of the rest of the worlds, that they would not have stood a chance. Our training and organization was so much better, that Sheridan laughed at European cavalry when he saw it. Since then the United States has become even more powerful compared to the rest of the world, reaching its highest point right after WWII when it had the world in the palm of its hands and could have done nearly anything it wanted. Aside from the US, I would say Germany in tech and warfare, Britain in politics and culture. The French I will admit have contributed the most to Europe's wimpy reputation. ~;)
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
All concrete has rebar in it, including sidewalks and the foundations of homes.
I dissagree, regular concrete is still used all the time, as a surface, as blocks. Reinforced concrete may be essential, but it's still just concrete with an iron bar in it.
EDIT: Actually, I just remembered that sidewalks and patios don't have rebar in them. My bad lol.
Germany, pretty much everything in world was radically and suddenly transformed due to the second world war and without germany it wouldnt have happened. Not much that happened after 1950 would have happened the way it did without it. Seems like the logical conclusion.
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
Really? Even a concrete block?
All concrete has rebar in it, including sidewalks and the foundations of homes.
EDIT: Actually, I just remembered that sidewalks and patios don't have rebar in them. My bad lol.
I'm not convinced.
Anyway, I'm changing my vote. The Res Publica has given us more than Britain, France, the US and Germany combined have - even though Rome officially ceased to be a power in 476 AD the Romans have continued to exert an influence over every aspect of our lives. You name, they did it first - from architechture to mass entertainment, from mechanized production of marble facades to books.
I find the influence of Res Publica to be quite overstated really. And after 476 AD it was not a country. ~;)
Architecturally they did great things, though reusing many principles from others. But the cement/concrete buildings of the Sassanids were perhaps of a longer lasting nature one might say. Mass entertainment already existed in the form of many festivals or Greek theatre. Not forgetting olympic (and similar) Greek games as perhaps the most influential for sports of this age, much more than the Gladiators (with Etruscan roots) or horse races did in my opinion. When it comes to literature again we find it to be borrowing heavily from others mostly Greek tradition. Sure there were new additions for example the added importance of morality in autobiographic work, that would also manifest itself in much of Medieval literature. Marble façades surely aren't the Roman thing, how many examples are there even dating from times that Rome was mere bricks and mud?
I think Rome was perhaps one of the cultures that was most influenced and was successful at picking the beneficial things up and yes improving them. But being the most influential, I think not. Romanisation itself is also highly exaggerated and that is recently getting more and more recognised as well by the scientific community.
The question asked here is difficult to answer. It depends on what you find important, how you rate a country's share at being responsible for certain changes or events,... Sadly there are no charts for holding most territory or for most advanced faction in the real world.
But if we take it literally I could think of Belgium (Ozone layer), China (biggest polluter), Brazil (chop, chop),...
Luxembourg.
And human flight, underseas discoveries and space explorations as well as particle accelerators (don't say catapults now :laugh4: ), you name it, the romans did it first. ~;)
I love these threads. Everyone gives predictably nationalistic answers (apart from the jokers) whilst making every effort to appear completely rational and objective. :grin:
Trying to count philosophers, colonies, and inventions are ultimately exercises in futility. Western thought, achievements, and advancements were built upon one another. They are like the bricks and mortar that support modern Western Civilization. The British may have invented the jet engine, but the Germans made it workable, and so on.
That is, imho, the only reasonable answer to the question posed in the OP. The modern world has been most impacted by Western Civilization - Europe and European colonial nations. It appears, though, that the future will belong to the Far East...
Yes, I was thinking about the absurdity of it too. To know what "impact" means, you have to be able to rank and compare what's most important. I little adjustment in that can spin everything in the other direction. So you would have to be the worlds greatest philosopher and the world's greatest historian to answer the question.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
How so? China is a dictatorship that bribes its people with jobs, while facing the hard limits of the free market, bound at the hands and feet by western markets who are the main purchasers of their products, looking to shift the demand onto its own rising middle class which is becoming only more demanding from its government now that it has a taste of economic freedom and materialistic goods. Its own state capitalism can only serve to a certain point before they must reach the point of no return and relinquish control over its citizens in order to remain competitive since no top down economic structure has ever survived in the long term.
It appears, though, that the future will belong to the Far East...
The most influential empire for the West and therefore the modern world is very clearly the Eastern Roman Empire. Without it the Muslims would have run roughshod over most of our ancestors and the world would likely be a much more dim place. Not because of the muslims themselves haha but because the west delivered the world to modernity was because the unique collection of nationalistic cultures and competing nations in such a tiny geographical area that resulted in warfare and thus technology positively exploding. So my answer goes to the Byzantines.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
My dad worked for a concrete company for 15 years, and I helped him set up the forms and pour the concrete for the house I'm living in right now. Like I said in my edit; patios, driveways, sidewalks, basically anything that's just a simple slab, don't have rebar in them. So you were right about that. I probably shouldn't have even posted anything but I wasn't remembering clearly.
Really? Even a concrete block?
I'm not convinced.
If by concrete block you mean like a cube, I imagine it would need to be reinforced, otherwise it would be too fragile and wouldn't be able to hold it's shape, it would just fall apart.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
I think you're right. You can't really name one country which impacted the modern world the most.
I love these threads. Everyone gives predictably nationalistic answers (apart from the jokers) whilst making every effort to appear completely rational and objective. :grin:
Trying to count philosophers, colonies, and inventions are ultimately exercises in futility. Western thought, achievements, and advancements were built upon one another. They are like the bricks and mortar that support modern Western Civilization. The British may have invented the jet engine, but the Germans made it workable, and so on.
That is, imho, the only reasonable answer to the question posed in the OP. The modern world has been most impacted by Western Civilization - Europe and European colonial nations. It appears, though, that the future will belong to the Far East...
One country that needs to be added to the list that hasn't been mentioned yet is Spain. The conquest of the Americas transformed the world, and it's one of the events that allowed Europe to become such a powerhouse.
Israel.
Game over. Thread needs closing now.
This:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
You obviously come from an alternate universe.
France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy
Vive Le Francios
Vive Le Republique
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
Cast strone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_stone AKA "solid concrete blocks", very widely used in the UK for the outer course of external walls (inner course being thermal blocks) and for internal walls. It has the advantage of not suffering from "concrete cancer", so if the morter fails it does not crack as the steel rods rust. I've demolished the stuff with a sledghammer (fun afternoon) and I can tell you, it's just concrete a grit.
My dad worked for a concrete company for 15 years, and I helped him set up the forms and pour the concrete for the house I'm living in right now. Like I said in my edit; patios, driveways, sidewalks, basically anything that's just a simple slab, don't have rebar in them. So you were right about that. I probably shouldn't have even posted anything but I wasn't remembering clearly.
If by concrete block you mean like a cube, I imagine it would need to be reinforced, otherwise it would be too fragile and wouldn't be able to hold it's shape, it would just fall apart.
I think you're right. You can't really name one country which impacted the modern world the most.
One country that needs to be added to the list that hasn't been mentioned yet is Spain. The conquest of the Americas transformed the world, and it's one of the events that allowed Europe to become such a powerhouse.
The US builds completely differently to the UK, what you call "dry wall" we call "stud wall" and we only use it to divide existing rooms, or in cheap builds.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Except the US was never a dictatorship, and that is where the key difference is in how the two handles social unrest when you can't provide millions of new jobs every year...
That doesn't really disprove his point. If China underwent the scenario you described, then they would become truly comparable to the USA in the in the first half of the 20th century. They really would own the future if that happened.
You can stop this discussion as we all know what the answer is - it is Serbia of course. On what do I base this on, you wonder? Well, game that has sold most copies in history is GTA IV. What do you do in that game? You play a Serb, who`s kicking ass and taking names. It doesn't take a genius to understand this means that, consciously or subconsciously, you all want to be Serbs, which makes Serbia most influental country in the world ever. QED.
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
Concrete is poor in tension but excellant in compression hence it's use for concrete blocks basically you put steel in a foundation to improve its tensile strength. However you dont do this for the blocks as there expected to do a different job and it would be uneconomical and unneccessary to put steel in a block.
My dad worked for a concrete company for 15 years, and I helped him set up the forms and pour the concrete for the house I'm living in right now. Like I said in my edit; patios, driveways, sidewalks, basically anything that's just a simple slab, don't have rebar in them. So you were right about that. I probably shouldn't have even posted anything but I wasn't remembering clearly.
Basically a concrete foundation or lintel needs to prevent stretching and bending but the block only needs to resist compression.
A point to consider might be how appropriate it is to equate global culture (McDonalds etc) with American culture.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Or: how come an American company is equated with global culture, and what does it say about the impact of the country that fostered the company? ~;)
A point to consider might be how appropriate it is to equate global culture (McDonalds etc) with American culture.
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
Depends on your definition of global culture fully the majority of the world has proably never eaten a big mac can it be described as global then.
A point to consider might be how appropriate it is to equate global culture (McDonalds etc) with American culture.
Your also missing the point that it doesnt matter if the idea is not inherently American they came up with the system of the McDonalds takeaway and exported it to the world.
Nowadays even completely Irish takeaways like Supermacs are using a system designed by and for Americans, this must influence how we treat the experience even if we have come to see it as global in nature.
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
You cant deny that America is influencing the world through it's fast food, soft drinks, telly an movies all consumed by non americans on a far larger scale.
Or: how come an American company is equated with global culture, and what does it say about the impact of the country that fostered the company? ~;)
It actually says more about the Non American consumers than the Americans themselves as there not the ones equating McD's with America
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Yeah, well, Mac Donald's is simply (part of) America's legacy to the world so that is what America is equated with. I imagine the Irish are not the ones equating Ireland with shamrocks and pubs. Certainly the Dutch don't equate the Netherlands with wooden shoes, wind mills or tulips. :shrug:
It actually says more about the Non American consumers than the Americans themselves as there not the ones equating McD's with America
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Yeah, well, Mac Donald's is simply (part of) America's legacy to the world so that is what America is equated with. I imagine the Irish are not the ones equating Ireland with shamrocks and pubs. Certainly the Dutch don't equate the Netherlands with wooden shoes, wind mills or tulips. :shrug:
True but the influence is still there underneath it all however diluted
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
By far east you mean China? I don't think so. Paper tigers don't last long.
I love these threads. Everyone gives predictably nationalistic answers (apart from the jokers) whilst making every effort to appear completely rational and objective. :grin:
Trying to count philosophers, colonies, and inventions are ultimately exercises in futility. Western thought, achievements, and advancements were built upon one another. They are like the bricks and mortar that support modern Western Civilization. The British may have invented the jet engine, but the Germans made it workable, and so on.
That is, imho, the only reasonable answer to the question posed in the OP. The modern world has been most impacted by Western Civilization - Europe and European colonial nations. It appears, though, that the future will belong to the Far East...
Other than that I agree.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
By far east you mean China? I don't think so. Paper tigers don't last long.
Other than that I agree.
Huge population, ethnically homogenous, great GDP growth with an actual trade surplus, no debt etc... Western countries are more like paper tigers compared to China. After all, various western nations rose to prominence for a century or two, but China has led the world economically, technologically and militarily for 90% of the known history.
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Maybe it just says that America was the environment that allowed for big multi-national corporations to take off. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are exporting American culture when they establish themselves elsewhere.
Or: how come an American company is equated with global culture, and what does it say about the impact of the country that fostered the company? ~;)
What would you say is inherently American about McDonalds? The place is decorated and the staff dress in a modern, western fashion. The food is based on American cuisine, although I've heard that McDonalds in places like India etc do all sorts of Indian foods.
I once heard the term "glocalisation" used to describe companies like McDonalds. Global in their reach, but adopting local customs wherever they are. I think that term is pretty appropriate.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
But the question is that when the likes of Supermacs adopt McDonalds system, are they doing so because people buy into the American culture that is supposedly represents? Or are they doing it because it is simply the most efficient business model and an American company happened to come up with it first?
Depends on your definition of global culture fully the majority of the world has proably never eaten a big mac can it be described as global then.
Your also missing the point that it doesnt matter if the idea is not inherently American they came up with the system of the McDonalds takeaway and exported it to the world.
Nowadays even completely Irish takeaways like Supermacs are using a system designed by and for Americans, this must influence how we treat the experience even if we have come to see it as global in nature.
When I think of American culture I think of American football, basketball, rednecks, 50's diners, country music etc.
McDonalds isn't any of that, it's just bland generic corporate capitalism.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Sure, they've been fairly powerful but they've also been fairly contained. In the 1500s and later, Europe was sending ships everywhere around the world, trading and conquering. Aside from Zheng He, how much was China really able to show any sort of dominance on the world stage and really demonstrate a "lead"?
Huge population, ethnically homogenous, great GDP growth with an actual trade surplus, no debt etc... Western countries are more like paper tigers compared to China. After all, various western nations rose to prominence for a century or two, but China has led the world economically, technologically and militarily for 90% of the known history.
hmm, that's really not how I would describe Chinese history based on what I know of it. The triumphalism seems misplaced.
If you look at ancient Egyptian history, they were very wealthy, had great agriculture and population, only went abroad for luxury items, built great monuments etc. They had "enough" because of their complaisance and willingness to bow to a supreme god/ruler. China seems similar. Their belief that they had nothing to learn from the Europeans was more like arrogance than actual superiority.
In any case, China engaged in a great deal of colonialism. You don't need to cross oceans in ships to be colonial.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
I was actually referring to Asia in general. A number of factors, including population size, economic size and dynamism, government sobriety and foresight, and shared cultural norms are converging to push the genesis of most future human advancement to that part of the world. The cultural emphasis on education shared by most Asian nations alone will allow successive generations of Asian young people an ability to operate in the digital era in a way that many Western children will not be capable of. They will be the creators and we will be the users. In South Korea, laws have been passed to limit the amount of time children can study each day. Such problems do not exist in the West. There is a unique discipline, a will to succeed both on a personal and national level, that can only be found in Asia.
By far east you mean China? I don't think so. Paper tigers don't last long.
Other than that I agree.
Contrast that to the complacency and governing incompetence that can be found in all aspects of life in the West. We are living in a society largely built on ideas, technologies, and wealth created generations ago. Walter Russell Meade calls it the blue model, and there is no alternative to our socio-economic arrangement on the horizon even as the money to pay for it slowly dries up. Our ability to pursue transformational national priorities diminishes each year due to political infighting, a cultural epidemic of shortsightedness, and the incredible cost of getting anything done in the West. Worse, our people's ability to envision such goals is in a similar downward spiral. Asian nations are embarking on great infrastructure and development programs while America could not even stem the tide of deteriorating infrastructure with half a trillion dollars for ‘shovel ready projects’. China built entire cities as America struggled to rebuild the site of the Twin Towers. The Eurozone's problems are well documented.
There is a genuine, shared goal among the Chinese at all levels of society to transform the nation. The French, on the other hand, are pretty content with where they are. Pseudo intellectuals and academic establishment types scoff at the idea of a 'national will' as it harkens back to the bad old days of colonialism and nationalism, but the concept does exist and is on display far more prevalently in Asian nations than Western ones. It can be very powerful.
Just as Europe and European colonial nations shaped the globe for centuries, that role will increasingly shift to Asia in the future.