Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Jul 2002 02:26:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3750 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Joseph Williams writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
>
> > > > Greatest? History, my friend, will see about that.
> > >
> > > Well, I meant *in* history, not for all time. The US is the greatest nation to
> > > have ever existed, even though we've only been around for 200odd years.
> >
> > Sorry to pop in in this discussion like this, but I dispute this point of
> > yours. I'd acknowledge the United Kingdom as the greatest nation the world
> > has ever seen, even if its context was considerably different
> > (colonial/imperial, I mean).
> > You can say a lot about how great the USA are now, and you won't be totally
> > wrong (the country is great, IMO), but bear in mind that the American way of
> > life had its origin in the British way of life... And so far, the USA have
> > not originated any significant nation. :-) To my view, the ultimate evidence
> > that the UK was the greatest nation to date is the fact that it parted
> > itself into viable countries when needed, after giving them all the best it
> > could of its own costumes.
>
> I'm in full agreement with taking into consideration previous civilizations
> as greater in influence than what is currently the USA of today. Take either
> China or Egypt, which are still very vital world communities today. Most
> everything we take for granted had some sort of origin in these regions.
> From masonary, writing, religion, and structures whose purposes we in our
> enlightened era have yet to fathom. When the Egyptians contructed the Sphynx
> they had it line up with the constellation of Leo as it came over the
> horizon, though not when it was built, but as the constellation would appear
> some 13,000 years prior to the construction of this. Several other pyrmaids
> in Mexico, Cambodia, chalk drawings in the UK and the largest petroglyphs in
> the world located in Central America all follow this same example:
> positioned to reference a constellation coming over the horizon 13,000 years
> prior. What civilization was this that they refer to? One that has had a lot
> of influence on everything since.
I will be more inclined to agree that China has continuously been an
extremely important civilization, rather than Egypt (which is now only a
part of a much wider culture). But yes, you have a point - ultimately, those
who came before laid the path to our present-day greatness.
My perception of the UK (maybe I should say British Empire, to be more
accurate) as the greatest nation to ever have existed derives from the fact
that it had both a great size and a great legacy (which is not over yet, nor
will be soon). To be honest, I sorta made a separation between civilization
and nation, since both the UK and the USA belong to what I consider an
European society.
As for the 13000 years ago stellar reference, I did not know about it, and
must investigate further to form an oppinion. What puzzles me about it is if
these guys were able to do such an incredible mathematical calculus, why on
Earth were they unable to write down the meaning of it for everyone to know?
;-)
> > > But if you have a nomination
> > > for a greater one, I'm all ears.
> >
> > See above.
> > Additionally, I'd risk pointing out that Norway seems to be now the greatest
> > place to live in, according to UN statistics - Canada dropped it's place in
> > the rank a short while ago. And if a place is the best one to live in, it is
> > fair to call it "the greatest", don't you agree? :-)
>
> Canada is pretty good, even if we don't have pyramids. Mabye a couple of
> those would bump us back up huh?
Nah, never mind. The Norse are not really trying to beat you guys...
besides, they have oil - so your chances are thin for the time being :-)
> > > > If I were prone to doing a world tour, backpacking like and just on a
> > > > walkabout--which flag would I rather have sewn on my backpak, Canada or
> > > > America? Which flag would open more doors for me, and which would slam more
> > > > doors in my face?
> I think your attitude would slam more doors than anything. But for what it's
> worth the USA flag isn't looked terribly favourably in a lot of countries.
> Not that any *western* country is but the US's overseas policies and refusal
> to commit to various treaties makes it more of a target in some places.
> > >
> > > Totally irrelevant. Dave, I really couldn't care less what other countries
> > > think of us. If they hate us, that's their problem (unless they hate us so
> > > much that they start killing us, in which case I care a lot)
> >
> > And what do you think of other countries? Is there any country you could try
> > to live in? Would you try to adapt to a new country (suppose you had to
> > emmigrate due to work reasons), or isolate in the "american quarter" and
> > whine about how misfortunate you'd be for living abroad?
> > I dunno, but it seems to me you are simplifying the relation of your country
> > with the RoTW. No two countries are alike, all have good points and bad
> > points, that can't be "counted". Just because you believe your system is
> > great and suitable to you, that alone does not mean it *is*... ;-)
> >
> > > > Don't go telling me, and the rest of the world that America is the greatest
> > > > country inthe world--remove the plank out of your eye before you try to tell
> > > > me that.
> > >
> > > Again I challenge you to name a nation greater than the US in *any* category
> > > (but please, don't mention sports). I'm not saying we are perfect-- far, far
> > > from it. We have plenty of issues. All I am saying is that, given the lot of
> > > the world's countries today, there is simply no comparison. I say this not as
> > > a braggart; it just happens to be a fact.
> >
> > (See above for nations)
> > I dispute this "fact" to be even a valid statement! (there really isn't a
> > universal form of comparison between countries, is it?)
> >
> > > But show me I'm wrong. I know this is coming off as a lot of flag-waving and
> > > Patriotic rhetoric, but try to see beyond that and really take a look at what
> > > this country has done in 200ish short years. It's downright remarkable. And
> > > then try and *explain* the US's success. And try not to conclude with "dumb
> > > luck":-)
> >
> > In two words: Pacific + Atlantic. Geography alone has given the USA great
> > opportunities, and the settlers knew how to profit from them. They did
> > right, and built a great nation. I only dispute it to be "the greatest to
> > date", or even the greatest *now*.
>
> The US's success is based on immigrants. It is not so much a nation as the
> metaphor for the global village.
Good point. So when John was claiming the USA to be the greatest nation of
all, he might have a point: if it is a collection of nations, the best must
be in it. The downside of the argument is *the worst may be there too*.
Hence, my doubts to the validity of the claim.
> More enlightened citizens of your country
> realize their stewardship role. What have you done to contribute to your
> country's greatness besides being born in it? Measuring your flag pole is
> what seperates you from the rest of the world and dosn't help anyone. The US
> has contributed to every major disaster and 3rd world country because they
> have inherited the responsibility of stewardship.
I must say in the defense of the USA that they were not alone in bad things.
Maybe their role was more visible, or proeminent, whatever. So I wouldn't
say they were the *sole responsibles* for *any* of the world's disasters, at
least those I can remember.
> And it's a bit of blind
> luck that WWII went the allies way and were it not for the UK the Natzi's
> would have put a different spin on things.
Sidenote:
The soviets might have beaten the Nazis in the Eastern Front, IMO. Given the
ease at which Stalin sent conscript to the battlefront... it might have
taken them longer, say 1947/48, but they'd have won. By then, the Germans
would be completely exhausted.
My current understanding is that FDR was warned by Churchill about the
danger that USSR's "Europe domination" would mean to the USA (and everyone
else?), and took measure against it - first helping the Brits, then actively
waging war, thanks to the japanese pretext. The outcome (Pax Americana)
might not have been part of his initial plan, rather later materializing as
a consequence of the British/French inability to recover their former
greatness. Ultimately, the USA achieved Superpower status because the former
powers destroyed each other...
> I think that adds to Pedro's
> arguement the unrelenting effort with manpower and funds that the UK
> commited to preserving the 'american way of life' and all of democracy. If
> America had devoted as much energy and suffered as many losses as the UK did
> then it would be a different discussion we would be having.
Yet, it may be seen the other way around. The Brits were themselves trying
to preserve their lifestyle, only their cause was much more critical. In one
point I will make no dispute: the Brits fought out of pride and trust in
their achieved lifestyle. They made sacrifices, and persevered. They
ultimately lost the Empire as a consequence, but the legacy was safe by
then. And that is the great consequence of the British resistance, their
legacy outlived the Empire.
As a nation, they are an example - if not to follow, to look upon with
consideration for the way they know how to part - I can't remember any
Empire which parted itself in a generally so orderly fashion, managing to
conserve the achieved greatness of character whilst losing the greatness in
size.
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
