Org Mobile Site
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 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:
Is this supposed to be a real discussion or just anoither way of SFTS to express his France fetish?
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.
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 :
France on the other hand gave us modern government,law,medicine,sex,sport, rock & roll, and philosiphy
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:
France on the other hand gave us [...] rock & roll
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:
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...
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:
Germany.
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
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...
My answer is still Germany.
Even though I would've loved it to be France...
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
...And there are more famous german philosophers than french...
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:
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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
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:
Of course this could be interpreted as my own bias
Indeed. Perfidious briton! Of course this could be interpreted as my own bias
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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.
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:
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...
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:
As far as I can see even those post-1500 innovations Germany actually came up with are heavily forshadowed elsewhere, including Lutheranism.
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.
I would like to note that the British invented the Internet, not the Americans.
Tim Berners Lee.
Americans.. thinking they invent everything!
Tim Berners Lee.
Americans.. thinking they invent everything!
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Rousseau is Swiss 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.
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
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:
Indeed. Perfidious briton!
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!
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
You're American, right?
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:
Wrong.
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:
As for the French and American independence, surely that alliance was more strategic than ideological?
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:
Rome? Nobody?
If I was to list off the ways that Rome has had an impact on your life, the list would be endless.
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:
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
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO