Which civ was the most powerful in all history?

[Jayis Solis]

We can banter about power transition theory and long cycle theory and all sorts of "hegemony" arguments, but what it amounts to is, imho, the very thing that denies an empire greatness-- the inability to see and incorporate the contributions of other societies.

We can scream USA, USA until we are red, white, and blue in the face and we can hold the Romans on some high pedastal, and extol the virtues of your "country xyz" that is better than so and so's.

And you know what, good for you for feeling that way, no matter what your view, pretty cool that you can share it in an open forum where you can be praised or chided by your peers. The concept of democracy and free speech, to my knowledge, first came into being in the Athenian city-state.

[dexters]

The paradox lies in this line of reasoning.

Is the ability to see the contributions of other societies a tangible quality or is it an unattainable quality?

If such a civilization do indeed realize and incorporate the contributions of other socieities to their own, do you consider this to be part of the bantering or a genuine positive quality of a civilization.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

Maybe that is bcos i define culture with cultural aspects rather than politcal borders or nationalistic feelings. There are certainly more cultures in the world than countries. I understand that it would require a very broad veiw of culture indeed to define America as a cultural entity. Simply put, if it is a single culture then it is not a multiple of cultures, if it is a multiple of cultures then it is not a single culture.

Why is the cultural contribution attributed to "Americans" as a whole rather than groups of people under a different title? U r still implying that America is a cultural entity before even first establishing it is. U are saying that it is "world culture" but at the same time "distinctly American", i think it is very inconsistent.

I'm not a publicist for the American civilization or culture; but your atomizing of American culture is simply absurd. Why is Jazz attributed to Americans? Well, let's see, where did it originate....

It isn't African music, it isn't British music, and despite Stephane Grappelli and Jacques Loussier, it wasn't French, so by exhausting all other possibilities, I came to the same conclusion as most other rational human beings: jazz (and blues, and gospel and country) are distinctively American artistic forms, created by Americans, in America, arising out of the historical ferment of American history and immigration. The fact that jazz spread to Paris and Great Britain and Africa, the fact that you get Jamaican country and Irish country and Australian country music, the fact that Marta Sebestyen and Muzsikas can release an album called 'Blues for Transylvania', does not negate the essential American origin and nature of those musical forms. I see no contradiction between America originating art forms within the boundaries of their country, and then those artforms (more recently rap and hip hop) being taken up worldwide as part of a more 'global' culture.
You seem unwilling to believe that America is what it purports to be: a melting pot.

"As a musical language of communication, jazz is the first indigenous American style to affect music in the rest of the World. From the beat of ragtime syncopation and driving brass bands to soaring gospel choirs mixed with field hollers and the deep down growl of the blues, jazz's many roots are celebrated almost everywhere in the United States."

taken from: www.jass.com/

See also:

"Segregation and Jim Crow caused several things to happen. Undoubtedly, the intensification of segregation brought together the Creole (bi-racial) and black communities of the South in ways that would not have happened had more race-mixing been permitted. In New Orleans, this had a dramatic effect in the creation of jazz as both Creole and black musicians brought different but crucially important elements to the mix of this music that might never have come together if these two groups did not find themselves forced together socially and politically. Segregation made it possible for further black cultural syncretism to take place, which made jazz not only a viable expression across a broad spectrum of the artistic black community, but also an expression open to experimentation because it was built on the idea of blending. Because of the Creole influence, jazz was always open to European and parlor influences. Because of the black influence, jazz always had a foundation of African and gutbucket expressions and traditions that continued to inform the music throughout the 20th century. "

from: www.pbs.org/jazz

Not European, not African, not Native American, but American.

[ginzuishou]

If such a civilization do indeed realize and incorporate the contributions of other socieities to their own, do you consider this to be part of the bantering or a genuine positive quality of a civilization.

It's the future baby!

[Styria]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

I understand that it would require a very broad veiw of culture indeed to define America as a cultural entity. Simply put, if it is a single culture then it is not a multiple of cultures, if it is a multiple of cultures then it is not a single culture.

Why is the cultural contribution attributed to "Americans" as a whole rather than groups of people under a different title? U r still implying that America is a cultural entity before even first establishing it is. U are saying that it is "world culture" but at the same time "distinctly American", i think it is very inconsistent. U set out to answer my claims that Americans themselves do not share common culture but ended up talking about cultures shared by people around the world originated from a politcal entity called America. Just answer the question directly: does Americans share common culture distinct from other peoples at any point in time? If so what, is the aspect of culture distinctly shared by them? u will find it difficulty to answer in the affirmative.

You are totally rediculous and totally ignorant of American life.

-America does not have dialects the way European and other countries do. It has -accents-. I can go just about anywhere and understand people's speech in a reasonable amount of time. But one friend in Sweden teased another as having porridge in her mouth when she talks.

-Americans are one of the most mobile people in the world. Lots of people move several times. My aunt and uncle have lived in New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, New York, and are now in CHILE! They have no problems fitting in in different places in America, and not much beyond language in Chile (maybe because of the spread of American culture there??). In fact, they don't have to do anything at all to fit in: as they always were, they are just as much Americans in each place, and so are the people around them. This [internally] mobile culture is why we didn't develop dialects; one old big fear was that America, as a whole, would develop into speaking its own language not mutually intelligible with British English (by the way, for those who make a big deal about the British Empire spreading English aroudn the world, why is it that the British speak more and more like Americans every day while we hardly take a step towards them?). There is no cultural sectionalism, only political (except to the extent that politics are a part of local culture). Conservatives think that liberal California, New York, and New England should fall off into the ocean, and liberals dislike conservatives right back. The biggest divide in America today has absolutely -nothing- to do with ancestry but whether you think more government is part of the problem or part of the solution. But if the terrorists and their supporters thought that America was a divided country, they're finding out right now what a deadly stupid idea that is.

-Americans share ideals about liberty and freedom, at least in their speech (I wish the liberals would stop pushing larger government on us, though, which is really opposite those ideals). The "multuple of cultures" consists of what culture's cakes your grandmother bakes for Christmas. Type of music? It's something you're "into": I happen to like Irish music, and could care less about Irish anything else even though that's part of my ancestry. I don't even drink beer, yet that doesn't make me any less American. With 275 million people, we have plenty of room for people to be into everything without being divided.

-Hispanics and the Spanish language? Big deal. The vote in the 2nd Continental Congress that made English the language of the United States, instead of GERMAN, won by a single vote, and that remained a huge language bloc until WWI. As for cheap immigrant labor, these guys never stay cheap for long.

-96% of Americans have TVs, and essentially 100% have radios. We're on the same receiving end of what the media tries to pass along as "mainstream culture" even if it doesn't accurately represent us.

-Religion? I'm a conservative Lutheran, and correct doctrine means a LOT to me. So I can tell you right now, that what I see around me is a lot of people who don't have a clue about theology or doctrine and believe that a lot of things don't really matter. We do not have any big religious divide, just a spectrum that ranges from Christian to unbeliever, with a whole lot of people in the middle who say they believe in "God" but don't care to define just who that god is.

-Homeschooling. We have about a million homeschooled kids in America. On average, they're at least one grade level above the public schools and many are as many as 4 grades ahead. They also do better than the private schools. But the people who complain about those children's socialization are just full of garbage. Kids in public schools have each other for examples. What do they grow up acting like? Children. Homeschooled kids grow up having adults for examples (and they have plenty of contact with other children). What do they act like? Adults. Who fits in better in society? People acting like adults. No divide here, except in terms of how educated many people are.

In the end, this is the extent of cultural divide in America: I'm white, primarily English/Irish/Dutch, conservative, Lutheran, 24 years old, live in a town of under 5,000, am a college student, waste too much time on my computer, like reading, learning, drawing a little, daydreaming, etc.

What am I? I'm a New Yorker.

That's the main extent of multiculturalism in America. No one in chat rooms asks you what cultural group you're in, just where you live. 'Oh! My brother lives up in ___ City. Are you anywhere near there? Nope, other side of the state. But I do have friends there....'

As for your other complaints about American pride, I guess you're one of the ones pushing the Soviet Union as a superpower. The USSR was a superpower only to the extent that it had nuclear arms and a substantial army. Then, in 1981, Ronald Reagan took them to task on it, and they bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with us, with the unleashed latent energy America had the whole time of the Cold War. By the way, for anyone complaining about US national debt, defense spending under Reagan was only 10% of the budget, and from 1981 to 1988, the income to the federal government -doubled- because his tax cuts boosted the economy so much. We have a large debt because a Democrat congress spent $1.70 on every $1 coming in on social programs.

There are other things to show America's greatness in the world. You Europeans complain about how America generates so much CO2 and won't do the Kyoto protocols (by the way, until more than just Romania ratifies them instead of just talking about it, I think you hypocrites need to shut up about US). CO2 is not polution. It's production. America generates 30% of the world's CO2 with 5% of the world's population because because we are the industrious civ that Civ III categorizes us as. America feeds the world. You say that's a nation, not a civilization. I'd really like to know what the difference is.

Okay, that's long enough. But I'll just toss out one more thing: the United States is a republic, not a democracy. We are the greatest, but I'll agree that we aren't the first. For the best description of republics I've found, here's a link to Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" - http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm

[Styria]

Originally posted by Zealot
Since the question is "which civ WAS the most powerful in all history" I had to vote for the Romans.

Would reminding you that the question is "which civ was the most powerful in ALL history" change your vote? =)

[Sun Zi 36]

"I'm not a publicist for the American civilization or culture; but your atomizing of American culture is simply absurd. Why is Jazz attributed to Americans? Well, let's see, where did it originate....

It isn't African music, it isn't British music, and despite Stephane Grappelli and Jacques Loussier, it wasn't French, so by exhausting all other possibilities,............"

This just showed a complete failure to understand the word "culture". This will be the last time I will explain it. U say Jazz originated from the country America so it is American culture. Is it not viable also to say that Jazz originated from the state Louisiana so it is only Louisainian culture? Jazz originated from the city New Orleans so it is culture solely for the New Orleans people? Jazz originated from the continent North America so it is North American culture? Jazz originated from the Western Hemisphere so it is Western Hemisphere culture? U have associated geographic divisions with cultural divisions and took for granted that they will parallel. U adopted a specific level of division (national) but failed to justify why this division best reflects the distinct culture of the people. Again I ask u why attribute Jazz to the Americans if u have even conceded that they are presently shared by many outside America? Please read my post again and again if u still dont understand.

"You are totally rediculous and totally ignorant of American life.

-America does not have dialects the way European and other countries do. It has -accents-. I can go just about anywhere and understand people's speech in a reasonable amount of time. But one friend in Sweden teased another as having porridge in her mouth when she talks..................................."

I completely do not understand your points. Or maybe u responded from a misunderstanding from my posts. The only 3 points i can see relevant to whether Americans share common culture is: "Americans share ideals about liberty and freedom", "96% of Americans have TVs, and essentially 100% have radios" and "Americans are one of the most mobile people in the world... There is no cultural sectionalism, only political (except to the extent that politics are a part of local culture)." The first two points is not shared by Americans ONLY, so they can't really justify why America is a distinct civ. And i will just disagree with the third point, i wont care to elaborate until theres enough relevant points raised.

Someone said earlier that American culture is its ability to change. I agree that some cultures is capable to change more than others. But I disagree that change is an American feature. In fact America is rather conservative. Many European cultures are more progressive.

[Sun Zi 36]

"Would reminding you that the question is "which civ was the most powerful in ALL history" change your vote? =)"

I have pointed out about this in case u dont know. the past tense and the reference to "ALL HISTORY" requires u to put your response in the historical context, in the context of all historic periods. I would say the Roman empire or the Chinese were more powerful in their peak historic periods than the "Americans" in their peak historic period. The quotation marks were there bcos i m ignoring the fact that the question is asking civ, not nations, as i said it.

[Fozzie]

This is a great discussion guys but it seems to have gotten off on a tangent as all discussions which allude to a person's heritage tend to do. I'm not big on change though so I'll contribute to the chaos rather than attempt to correct it.

First up, I'm from the USA. I live in a small town outside of Kansas City, Missouri. I'm not really sure of the general consensus of what constitutes a "culture" but in my mind there is no culture exactly like the one I am part of anywhere on this Earth. I'll compare it to the patent system. To own a patent you must show that your idea has a distinct difference from any other item that has previously been patented. There may be other things like your patent, or it may even be derived from another object but it has to have some uniqueness to make it your own. I believe that my particular culture, although sharing some traits with other cultures, is distinct enough to warrant its own particular classification. Where we run into a problem is in the fact that my culture is not exactly like everybody else's who lives in the United States. We are a nation of many cultures and many influences. Various regions have their own particularities and even certain parts of those regions can be slightly different yet we are all part of one overall culture. Just because we have slight differences does not mean we are not one.

What exactly defines a culture?

Does your architecture define your culture? If so then America certainly has its own particular architecture, even though one region's architecture isn't quite the same as others.


Does your style of dress define your culture? If so then America definitely has its own style of dress, although it tends to change through time it still retains certain similarities.


Does your art or music define your culture? I suggest you turn on the radio and listen to some of that "rock and roll" music or pop in a videocassette of "Roadside America" and look at the particular artistic stylings of the rural people of the United States and tell me that it's the exact same as some other culture.


Does speech define a culture? The English we came over with during the times of colonialism is certainly not the English we speak today. Heck reading and understanding an Edgar Allen Poe poem is pretty daunting and it was only written 150 years ago. I'd say we developed our own particular form of English. As a matter of fact I usually say I speak "American" so as not to be questioned on certain words and syntax by other english speakers from around the world.


Do customs or rituals define a culture? Well we certainly have our own customs and rituals. Sunday football, tailgating, backyard barbecues, fourth of july picnics, sleepovers in the front yard, four wheeling, baseball, monster trucks, parades, festivals, most of which are something which other countries may also do but there is nobody on the face of the planet which does them like we do. If you were to attend any one of these functions then you would no doubt know exactly what culture you were looking at, and you'd know that nobody does it the same. Again, parts of this country may do things differently than other parts but all those ways are American.



America is a unique place. Alot of Americans have many customs all their own, usually based upon a mixture of their ancestral heritage and an overall American heritage. I for one am mostly from German descent, but I do not define my culture as German nor do I say silly things such as "German-American". I am an American through and through. If my personal beliefs, customs, ideals, etc. are not a culture then am I just without a culture? You can say my culture is derived from Germany but that would be wrong since I don't do many german style things. You can say my culture is derived from England but A. England didn't found my area and B. I don't do things "English style" save for my daily dose of tea. Even that though is American style iced tea. If I were to go to England I would be pegged nearly instantly as an American due to my uniquely American speech, my uniquely American dress, my uniquely American mannerisms and behavior as well as my overbearing sense of American pride. That is my culture, that is who I am.

I fully understand that Americans are typically a prideful nation who sometimes act in a boorish or overly confident manner but frankly that's just who we are. We are brought up to believe that our country is the best country in the world, and I believe that is how all people should be brought up. If you don't think your country is the best in the world then why do you live there? That's not to say that being overly boastful is good, I respect other nations, even Canada. *chuckle* But to say I have no culture since a small percentage of the states in the union were founded by a certain country, or because my country is just not old enough really gets to me. You can say we don't belong as the most powerful nation in history, I don't care, but don't say we aren't a civilization.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Martinus
[/b]
You cannot make such a comparison simply because the level of communication is glaringly different. Romans could have not spread their influence to Australia, however they had tried, simply because they had no technical measure to do so.

You're now saying that we should measure a culture's influence by how much their culture *would have* spread had the culture had the most optimal communications technology possible. Considering that this is impossible, not to mention terribly foolish and completely pointless, I think we can safely put a rest to this part of the discussion. Besides, in doing so, you concede that American culture has spread globally and is the most powerful.

This, however, doesn't say a lot about the importance of the cultural influence they were spreading. You have to compare things in their context.

This doesn't say a lot about the importance of the cultural influence the Romans were spreading, and neither do I. The value of American and Roman culture respectively is a completely different subject. America's cultural domination is all we're talking about here.

Ok, so according to your definition it is an "ad hominem" argument, as you refer to emotions.

Have it your way.

When 1700 years will pass from this tragic day though, we will be able to compare whatever is left of the Roman and American cultural impact, respectively.

If there's anybody left to compare it. But we don't live 1700 years in the future, we live NOW. And that's the only world I'm talking about--the real world, as it exists NOW.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Styria
Would reminding you that the question is "which civ was the most powerful in ALL history" change your vote? =)

Last week, America WAS the most powerful civ in ALL history.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Styria

-Americans share ideals about liberty and freedom, at least in their speech

Absolutely true. And Americans were the first to do it. This is the core of American culture.

The vote in the 2nd Continental Congress that made English the language of the United States, instead of GERMAN, won by a single vote, and that remained a huge language bloc until WWI.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. The first time I heard somebody say this, I thought that it was complete garbage. The truth is, no congress in the history of the United States has ever voted to make German the official language. It has *never* been a huge language impediment, not in 1776 and not in 1919. There *was* a vote in the 2nd Continental Congress on whether to CONSIDER a bill that would make laws available in both English and German (German was a pretty sizeable minority language at the time), but it is THAT vote that failed by one vote. I'd hardly call a vote on whether to CONSIDER a bill that would've printed some laws in another language a vote on making German the official language.

[Sun Zi 36]

Frozzie:
I m very impressed with what u just said. U r the only one who understand my posts. So I will get into really discussing it with u, although not in too much detail.

"Where we run into a problem is in the fact that my culture is not exactly like everybody else's who lives in the United States. We are a nation of many cultures and many influences. Various regions have their own particularities and even certain parts of those regions can be slightly different yet we are all part of one overall culture. Just because we have slight differences does not mean we are not one."

This is a valid argument. However, I would tend to argue that the differences of culture in your country is more (actually substantially more) than differences of culture within other cultures.

You raised some good points especially in your paragraph about your own heritage, although u seem to have neglected differences of culture with minorities such as recent migrants. I would not have criticised your definition of culture, however, if it wasn't for the fact that all we need is 16 civilisations. True, there are certainly similarities in culture with MOST of America different from the rest of the world. However, i do not think the points u have are enough difference to differentiate it given the small number of cultures we need. Is the unique architecture, style of dress, art, music speech, customs that u raised really that unique compared to say most people in Australia or England given we have cultures far more unique such as the Arabs and Chinese? People can at least understand each other in US and Australia and England even though the accent may be different. But not in Iraq and China. For customs, at least u all have the same new year and most holidays like Christmas and Easter when people in Arabs and China have VERY different ones. At least u use pretty much the same instruments and play from the same music structure, like the 12 tone scale. Other cultures have their own instruments and use a different scale for example.

U get the idea. thats all i'll say for the while.

"You're now saying that we should measure a culture's influence by how much their culture *would have* spread had the culture had the most optimal communications technology possible. Considering that this is impossible, not to mention terribly foolish and completely pointless, I think we can safely put a rest to this part of the discussion. Besides, in doing so, you concede that American culture has spread globally and is the most powerful."

I do not understand why u try to dismiss this argument. Yes, it is conceded, i mean ppl outside US have a much clearer view, that the US IS the most powerful nation. U seriously think that anyone is going to challenge that point? But that is NOT the question. The question is in the past tense and referred to HISTORY. Do u think the poll maker is stupid? Whats the point of comparing the power of ancient Babylonians who possessed stuff like bows and modern Russians who had machine guns and nukes? All i can see is a dismissal of clear logic in order to get to ur points.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
I do not understand why u try to dismiss this argument. Yes, it is conceded, i mean ppl outside US have a much clearer view, that the US IS the most powerful nation. U seriously think that anyone is going to challenge that point? But that is NOT the question. The question is in the past tense and referred to HISTORY. Do u think the poll maker is stupid? Whats the point of comparing the power of ancient Babylonians who possessed stuff like bows and modern Russians who had machine guns and nukes? All i can see is a dismissal of clear logic in order to get to ur points.

Reread my statement and you'll see that I'm talking about culture here and not military power.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Alternatively when Russia and China both fell to tyranny did the rest of the world follow them into the abyss. No.

Russia and China were never the flagships of the free world, were they?

If America tyrannizes , it's not just going to be, "Oh, looks like America's a brutal tyranny now. Didn't see that one coming." It would precipitate or be precipitated by some catastrophe that would make rights-loving democratic citizens *worldwide* impotent. That's my point, bub.