Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:10:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4005 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > 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).
> >
> > That's funny. For those reasons the US gets criticized bitterly...
>
> I used the expression "differnt context" for some reason. And I did not
> criticize the USA for any sort of Imperialist attitude, did I?
"Largest" != greatest. But I think an imperialist attitude is
extremely evident in American destinarianism (we're the greatest,
therefore everyone else should take our lead). That's going to
take us headlong into a bitter squabble with the PRC one day, far
off, when their economy eclipses ours (as it almost certainly
shall unless we begin exploiting resources in space actively).
> > > 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...
> >
> > Yeah, and life in Britian became so intolerable for some that they *left* it to
> > find a better life and country here in America!
>
> Innacurate: the Britons who originally left found life in the Colonies
> better; the second wave of migrants did not even have British predominance
> (Germans, Austrians/Hungarians, Russians, apatrids,...)
Don't blanket "Britons." The British Empire is often referred
to as the "Scottish Empire"; the Scots (and others of the Celtic
Fringe) had severely limited options in the British Isles. They
may not have wanted to go, but at least in the colonies fame and
forture were possible. At home, the English were firmly in
control of the social and economic hierarchy.
Incidentally, those who left Europe for North America before 1776
were of two types: The Atlantic mercantile class and the large
immigrant class. The former tended to be extremely liberal and
embraced the possibilities of unfettered enterprise that independence
offered; the latter tended to be extremely conservative and very
exclusionary (and generally also religious dissenters vs. the CoE),
and they in fact left Europe to escape secularism and liberalism.
Take a look at immigration figures during the Interregnum, when
Puritans were in charge of England, and you'll see a significant
drop.
Before the nineteenth century, emigration across a sea was more
likely than not a good way to shorten one's life, or sometimes
a death sentence in itself. Why would anyone want to leave unless
fueled by religious conviction or driven by the dream of wealth?
(I'd argue that those two are intricately connected in a number
of ways.)
> > > And so far, the USA have
> > > not originated any significant nation. :-)
> >
> > lol If you are using the greatness of the US as a reason for Britian's
> > greatness... that's what I call "dumb luck";-)
>
> In no way it was pure luck; seizing opportunity had all to do with it. And
> the infrastructure that enabled the american expansion was, in essence, British.
See my statements earlier as well. The fact is that after 1812
our policy initiatives and Britain's dovetailed nicely; they
played our friends and got highly preferential treatment in South
American investment and trade. The fact that we shared a language
only made it that much more "natural."
Make no mistake, if Britain hadn't endorsed the Monroe Doctrine,
Europe would have carved up post-Spain Latin America into spheres
of influence too. Witness what happened to Mexico when the US
was preoccupied with the Civil War; afraid to take sides, Britain's
paralysis allowed France to march an army into Mexico and topple
its legitimate government.
> > > > Heck,
> > > > Americans have driven SUVs on the moon-- we've landed stuff on Mars!
> > >
> > > The purpose of that remains disputable - science is great, but has the
> > > condition of the average man been significantly improved thanks to Space
> > > exploration?
> >
> > Are you kidding???? Haven't you ever heard of "velcro"!!?? (apologies to those
> > who believe velcro is actually borrowed alien technology:-)
>
> Heve you heard of zippers, or buttons? They do the same, without the
> irritating noise. And now there are ziplocks - which I doubt have their
> origin in NASA alone!
Dude, Astronaut Ice Cream. If you don't believe its greatness,
you haven't experienced it. ;)
(Actually, polymer and electronics technologies benefit greatly from
the space program, as do theoretical physics and other "high sciences"
that tell us about the universe we live in. The problem is that you
don't see the products themselves articulated as "space program" based,
but they are.)
But John, I wouldn't call the moon buggy an SUV. I wouldn't dare
brag about putting one of those useless pieces of junk on the moon.
If there were any one material artefact I could eliminate from the
Earth it would be the SUV. It's the source of so much waste, hubris,
and outright danger that I'm embarassed to see them on the road.
Virtually nobody who owns one of those behemoths actually *needs*
it. I think we should mandate that everyone should drive little
clown cars, with a wagon behind it if you need to carry something.
If nothing else, it would end road rage, because everyone would
be too busy laughing.
(I want one in polka dots. Big purple ones.)
> > > It is my oppinion that the moon trip was purely a showoff, a
> > > good display of "we CAN do that, even though it's no use". An advertising
> > > stunt, for the Cold War context.
> >
> > Wow. You are talking about argueabley the single greatest human accomplishment
> > in the history of mankind. To reduce it to a "stunt" or to "show off" is about
> > as short-sighted as one could get. Our destiny is out there in space IMO.
>
> Our destiny is ultimately dust :-)
> And I disagree this was the most important achievement of mankind - my
> choice would go to writing.
Not dust, "star stuff." :)
I'd argue that the most important achievement of mankind is actually
the exploitation of hydrocarbons--both for good and for ill. At its
root are modern medicine, the extraction of energy from coal and oil,
global warming, population explosion, synthetic materials, and much,
much more. And, hydrocarbons were necessary for early writing too--
need that charcoal stick! ;)
> > > > And yet,
> > > > we could have rightfully claimed those places our own, but we didn't!
> > >
> > > Could you have kept them? (see the concept for African partition in Berlin
> > > Conference, 1883 - you can only claim it if you occupy it ;-)
1884-5. "Effective occupation" is the term. But I wouldn't use the
Congress of Berlin as a good precedent for anything other than the
crimes committed against Africa in the following century.
One reason the US hasn't tried to claim it is because that would be
simply too much arrogance. To claim the moon, Mars, and perhaps the
stars? Bad precedent. It also helps that a lot of NASA functionaries
were no-good lefty peaceniks who actually believed in global peace.
The fools!
> > > Additionally, I'd risk pointing out that Norway seems to be now the greatest
> > > place to live in,
> >
> > Norway??? Just going by depression and suicide statistics of Norwegians alone,
> > I'd rule her out;-)
>
> Aren't you confusing with Finland? :-P
North of the Arctic Circle = depressing. But yay for lutefisk!
(Not really, that stuff is foul.) But ++ for the booze!
> > But seriously, if Norway is *so* great, why aren't people clammering to
> > immigrate there?
>
> Says who? I think they have plenty of wanna-be-immigrants moving there!
Norway and Sweden have tremendously strict immigration laws.
Sweden, in particular, has a strong history of eugenics that
they've only recently begun to 'fess up to. It's part of what
I take to be northern Europe's schizophrenia regarding racism--
on one hand, they're very accepting of people, but on the other,
racial thought and behavior is so very ingrained into the daily
lives of the people that they don't see it--but it does project.
Ask the Surinamese in the Netherlands how they feel sui generis
if you want an example. (Don't mention Zwarte Piet, many are
kind of sore about that!)
> > And of the ones who are clammering to get into Norway, they
> > are merely doing so so they can live off of the government, and it is causing
> > an interesting backlash so I understand.
>
> They solved the problem by enfoercing a restrictive legislation. And they
> are doing fine so far.
But they also don't have a history of immigration. They're
not built on the basis of immigration. But I don't think all
are going to live off the government--that's the argument that
gets tossed out against the Hispanic population in the US--
especially the illegales--and it's bullhockey. They contribute
more financially than they take away, on the whole; most also
work, indeed that's what they came for at start. Most of the
time, money matters are used as an "objectivist" cover for
racist behavior. If you've ever seen what happens when one
black family, however neighborly and affluent, moves into a white
neighborhood, you know exactly what I mean.
> > Sure. But the best thing Canada has going for it is her neighbors;-)
>
> The Greenlandese??? :-D
Kalalit Nunaatese?
> > It is when we talk about the cornerstones of our country, which are liberty and
> > freedom. No other guards and protects them like we do. (This is our secret)
>
> Again, I dispute that assertion that the US are the *sole ones* to protect
> liberty and freedom. Maybe their role is more visible?
We loudly proclaim that liberty and freedom = USA. Therefore,
the normative is created, and it maintains in the minds of
USians--at least the white and middle-class segments--because
within the US we enjoy freedom and relative liberty. Foreigners'
experiences of the USA, I guarantee you, vary greatly.
Freedom and liberty? Sure, but mainly for US citizens, and not
even all of those.
> > > (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?)
> >
> > That's why I say, pick any category and let's compare (just not sports)
>
> Name some categories, if you like (just for me to use as a guideline as to
> what is acceptable in this "celebrity deathmatch" :-)
Population? Life expectancy? Access to medical care? Infant
mortality? Per capita GNP? In all of these categories, the US
is not the greatest.
> > > 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*.
> >
> > If geography alone were the reason, then why aren't Native Americans sitting
> > here saying that they are the greatest country in the world?
>
> Assuming the Native americans descend from asian migrants, they sedentarism
> was far more recent than the one of Europe. Thus, their development stage
> was different to the European one. It is a valid argument, IMO.
> Additionally, why would they bother with changing their lifestyle if it was
> not threatened? The ultimate reason for the fast european development was
> the frequency of conflicts!
It's not geography. It's biology. What do you think happened to
the Native Americans when Europeans showed up? They weren't sedentary,
but they did not place value on the same sorts of things that Europeans
did. In fact, because they didn't, the extractive resources were
there for us to grow fat and wealthy upon.
> > So what's so different about America?
> >
> > Here's my point:
> >
> > If the US were, say a socialist state:
> >
> > 1. Nobody would have bothered to come because they could have just as easily
> > gotten repressed in their home country,
>
> See BRITAIN!
See any of the states of Europe, after 1871 (Germany) or 1918
(the rest of Europe).
> > 2. The *opportunities* would not have existed and nothing would have been
> > accomplished.
>
> The opportunities are provided by mother nature. *Man* has to know how to
> take advantage of them in the best way!
In two words, dumb luck.
best
LFB
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
