Which civ was the most powerful in all history?

[Rosacrux]

Now, isn't that a conversation that has strayed?

Trying to help chill out a bit (and add some details that could be interesting) I might get caught into the ongoing flame war, but ...whatever...

First, the question set on this poll is plainly silly. Stupid. It has no answer, it doesn't make sense.

To have any value, it should be expressed differently. Like "who was the mightest nation in history (military terms)" or "what civilization had the greater cultural influence in history" or "which one was the first to dominate the early world" or whatever along these lines - the question in hand is too general to have a clear answer.

I am not trying to avoid an actual reply - I can do this easily, but in specific terms. Like:

- The greatest land-mass ever held by a single nation (kingdom, empire, whatever) was the 19th century British empire. Canada, India, Australia, parts in Asia, a great deal of Africa - all under British rule. Second here should be the Mongols, even though their empire degenerated pretty fast and third the Spaniards.

- The greatest military might ever: Rome. For more than 6 centuries the Roman Legions dominated the Mediteranean, Europe, Asia Minor, Middle East. There is no other example of a state so dominant and practically invinsible in military terms for such a long era. Don't even compare Rome with USA - USA controlls only a tiny fraction of the world land/population and a bit more in terms of resources. Rome controlled 1/3 of the known world at time (Americas, Oceania, Siberia and sub-sahara Africa was not "known world" at the time we are talking about) and that's something only Alexander came close - for a very short time though.

- Most influental in general terms: Rome and Greece. Greeks developed philosophy, perfected arts (in a height we would see again only during the Renaissance) established Democracy and achieved scientific thinking and came close to even establish scientific method - 2000 years before "the humanity" could even start thinking of it. Rome conquered Greece, took over the brilliant achievement of their subjects and passed it on, along with their own great achievements (especially in the legal field and in governing, as well as mechanics and building techniques). The barbaric germanic tribes (Franks, Allemani, Saxons, Angles, Burgundians, Goths etc. etc. etc.) established themselves as the continuers (SIC!) of this civilization, after they ransacked Rome.

- Most consistant: China. Barely a nation, they are the greatest civilization in terms of consistancy and balance throughout the centuries. There is a Chinese civilization present for the last 3200 years - if this is not Great, I don't know what it is. Also, they were great in the Scientific, philosphical etc. branch, so they would be my #2 choice after Rome/Greece in the previous category.

Now coming to the flame-subject of this thread, the supposed greatness of the American civilization. First, as other people said before me, there is no such thing as "american civilization". Americans (north) are a part of the "Western" civilization, which is a descendant of Roman/Greek civilization (or at least based on Roman/Greek values).

USA is the current leader in terms of military and economical strength and world domination politics-wise but unless it can maintain this status for a couple more centuries, it won't be able to make it into that list. And no matter what, USA won't become a civilization because it is part of a bigger civilization.

As in culture... well, there is popular culture and there is culture. In terms of popular culture, USA is dominant. It doesn't take much to understand that - N'Sync (bliach!!!) and Britney Spears ( ) are dominant worldwide - well, you could argue that so are the Spicegirls (Barf!!!) but they all belong to the same "western" civilization. In real culture, well, western Europe leads the world, but it also belongs to the same civilization so... what's the fuss about?

Be carefull kids, a nation is not necessarily a civilization. Especially nowadays. It can be a part of a civ, or it can engulf a number of civs (you can see that in countries like Russia or India and even USA - to an extend) but it's not necessarily a civ by itself.

[Evil Robot]

One question: which book is the most popular, most read, the most revered, most quoted, best-selled in the USA? Who did write this book; when and where was it written?

The Bible, written a very long time ago over a period of thousands of years.

Another question: which writer will the average American mention as the greatest writer of all times? To my knowledge his works are a mandatory part of every student's curriculum.

Edgar Allan Poe, an American.

I think the problem is that the average American knows next to nothing about the rest of the world and its 5000 years of history.

Hmmm...thanks for judging all of us on the stupidity shown by Hollywood. You think television stations are going to show the SMART people in American society? Hell no. Come over here and take a look. People aren't stupid.

For the record: when quality of life is compared based on life expectancy, education ect, the USA are consistently beaten by Japan, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and even the Netherlands. Yet boasting about your own country is considered over here a sign of ill-breeding!

And how many migrants do those countries have? Our migrant population makes up a significant fraction of our total population and drags those valued 'statistics' down. Quoting THGTOG:

90% of statistics are fiction

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Evil Robot

The Bible, written a very long time ago over a period of thousands of years.

Edgar Allan Poe, an American.

I think you're being disingenuous on both counts: Shakespeare would have a higher recognition factor; and as for the comment about the Bible...how many Bible Belt Bible thumpers, or everyday ordinary American Christians would have a working knowledge of New Testament Greek or Hebrew? I'm willing to bet that many more would be at least slightly familiar with the King James Authorized Version, translated in England and published 1611.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

Mollyboom: sorry if u think that was offensive. i was trying to indicate how there's no immediate direct association between geographic loaction and culture. For example, Christianity originated from Palestine. But it is not Palestinian culture. The same goes for ur Jazz. What matters is who is practicing the culture at any point in time.

Which was also my point....Creoles, whites and Africans mixed elsewhere in society in various parts of the world, Jamaica, Colombia, Tangiers, Marseilles, London, Liverpool...but only America produced jazz, because the conditions pertaining to the creation of jazz existed only in America. The whole point about jazz, which is what you seem to be missing, is that it is a hybrid artform, made up of many different influences, its idioms reflecting the cultural ferment of America. In this instance there is most definitely a correlation between the art form and where it was produced; your analogy of Palestine and Christianity is flawed, as Palestine was not a political or cultural entity at the time Christianity flourished. By the time jazz came about, writers such as Charles Dickens and Fanny Trollope and Oscar Wilde had already made observations on American customs, vocabulary and politics and how much they differed from British usage.

[pumph]

I think the missing concept in this entire thread can be summed up in one word: Continuity. It is impossible to understand European civilizations, including that of Great Britain, without understanding classical Rome and its legacy of a common language (Latin) a common legal system, and above all its ongoing legacy of a common culture and religion as propagated in a continuing line of intellectual influence for 2000 years. By the same token it is impossible to understand America without taking account of the British Empire which both founded it and prepared the way for it.

I'd like now to make some corrections to misconceptions in many of the above posts.

1) Democracy:
The British invented representative democracy and the party system which is its characteristic feature. This flowed from the fact that the country was divided along religious grounds coinciding with an economic split, neither side having sufficient power to dominate the country. Essentially the urban mercantile class tended to be non-conforming (Quakers & other Puritans) and they together with the Catholic minority (a rather odd combo) supported the Whig party, while the rural agricultural elite, mainly "High Church" Anglicans, supported the Tories. Parliamentary democracy evolved as a mechanism to reconcile these factions. The earlier Greek invention was of direct democracy and restricted to the citizens of urban Athens; there was no representation, and therefore no parliament. Finally, British parliamentary democracy was originally limited as to franchise, but then so was the American version though to a lesser degree.

2) US Culture:
Has the US made a cultural contribution to the world? Yes, and it can be summed up in one word: Secularism. The complete separation of church and state is uniquely American. Even in the light of what I said about Britain and its religious split above, the Queen remains to this day "Defender of the Faith", and there were for a long time actual legal impediments to the holding of political power. Disraeli had to jump through hoops to become the Britain's first Jewish premier as recently as the late 19th Century. There are no such impediments in the US, and this secularism became in turn key to the successful incorporation of such large disparate immigrant populations, as well as underlying the worldwide success of American popular culture.

3) English as a world language:
This can only be seen as having been established by a continuity leading from the British Empire to its US heirs. Remember the movie Evita? There were snobbish types looking down their noses at her in a garden-tea setting, yes? Well, they were Brits. What are called expatriates. They had been established there since the collapse of Spanish colonial power during and following the Napoleonic wars, Britain's great opportunity to enforce free trade. These expatriates dominated the import-export trade in most of South America and many other elements of the Argentinian economy. English was estabished as a de facto language of trade (along with Spanish) in the Americas long before the US got in on the act. Via Shanghai and Hong Kong it was also established as the de facto language of international trade (along with Chinese) throughout the whole of south-east Asia long before the US concerned itself with the Philippines. And none of these areas of the map were ever "colored red". It is doubtless true to say that with the dissolution of the Empire, English may then have tended to fall on hard times. The fact that the reverse is the case is of course due to the impact of the US, but it has had that impact in no small measure thanks to stepping into shoes which carry the label "Made in Britain.

4) American Civil War:
The Portuguese, Spanish and British conquered external empires while the Russians and the Americans conquered internal ones within their own land mass. The only difference is that America alone of all colonial powers followed a policy of effective genocide. This left a vast tract of land denuded of all population apart from the newly arriving settlers who were ethnically much alike and racially identical. So the possibility arose of converting empire into country, of forging these dislocated bits and pieces into a single state. The ACW was fought over the principles of how close this bond would be, a federation or a confederation. Empire was becoming country, causing huge pressures and exacerbating the economic dislocation between North and South. The issue of slavery may have been a proximate cause, but not a fundamental or underlying one. To say the ACW was fought "over slavery" is a bit like saying the War of Independence was fought "over tea".

5) Projection of power: All successful civilizations have been able to project their power successfully and speedily on what was for them a global scale. A comparison can be drawn between the Roman road network allowing the legions to move at speeds equalled only by individual mounted couriers as late as the 18th Century, the British fleet which could project its power from the Americas to China, and the contemporary US carriers. I wonder how many of those reading this know when the US first made use of such a capability vis-a-vis the Old World? It was in about 1805 with a punitive invasion of North Africa as a reprisal against the Barbary pirates, including US marines staging a raid on a town. Which town? "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli..." But for the Brits this sort of thing was old news.

6) Popular culture: Why all this fuss about Jazz? I remember once dining with a group of people including a concert pianist. This issue came up so he went over to the piano, played a classical piece, then played it again "as jazz" without needing to read it and with his eyes shut. It is simply style, not content. The keyboard used is "tempered" and therefore European as is the bulk of the content; the nature of the rhythm, namely syncopation, can be found in Bach or Beethoven, just not used continuously throughout the piece. Indeed, the bulk of influences on American music can be traced to a whole range of sources: Protestant church music, Irish folk songs (more obvious in the parentage of Country & Western Music), Music-Hall songs (drawn on in early Musicals for the screen), late classical music a la Mahler (much used in film scores), all manner of German, Italian, Slavic, Yiddish, etc, folk music, as well as jazz. From this glorious mixture, and in the context of the secular culture I've already mentioned, came Rock. This then passed back and forth over the Atlantic during its evolution. To ignore the Beatles is as ludicrous as to over-emphasize them.

On the contrary, America will probably be remembered not for Jazz but for Cinema. This is the art form of the Electronic Age and the US is rightly the country which perfected and chiefly produces it.

So, which civilization do I vote for? Well, in truth I reject the question. However, if pressed, and in spite of what I wrote above, I would probably opt for the US, but only in the last deacde or so, following the dawn of the "Information Age" accompanied by the currently maturing Globalization and after the demise of the Soviet Union, the latter being unable to compete in this new era. So it's perhaps a little early to tell.

One thing is clear however. If one takes power to mean purely state power then the US is relatively less powerful within its world context than the British were within theirs, and the British in turn less so than the Romans. Also, the later civilations have had less opportunity for their lasting cultural influences to mature. After all, French, Spanish and Portuguese are all Romance languages descended from Latin, the Roman Catholic church is still around after almost 2000 years, and one could say that Roman Law continues to conquer the world (having had a primary influence on British and thus US law via something called Canon Law). Remember, I started off emphasizing continuity!

What has changed is the speed of growth of these influences. Many posters have written that America has not been around long enough. But that is the precise point! One needs merely to switch the question around. Is it not utterly incredible that it has had such a massive impact on the everyday lives of people throughout the world in just one century? That is precisely why it gets my vote.

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I think you're being disingenuous on both counts: Shakespeare would have a higher recognition factor; and as for the comment about the Bible...how many Bible Belt Bible thumpers, or everyday ordinary American Christians would have a working knowledge of New Testament Greek or Hebrew? I'm willing to bet that many more would be at least slightly familiar with the King James Authorized Version, translated in England and published 1611.

No, Shakespeare wouldn't. He didn't even come to mind (at first) when I thought about great writers. I thought of Edgar Allan Poe, not him. And I think Americans would be slightly more familiar with the New American Standard or New International Version Bible than than King James' Bible.

You are the one being disingenious. After all, who is the American here?

The only difference is that America alone of all colonial powers followed a policy of effective genocide.

Have you even BEEN to the American South? I doubt so, or you would think otherwise.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by pumph
6) Popular culture: Why all this fuss about Jazz? I remember once dining with a group of people including a concert pianist. This issue came up so he went over to the piano, played a classical piece, then played it again "as jazz" without needing to read it and with his eyes shut. It is simply style, not content.

"In African music, in both its original and its various Americanized forms, different beats are frequently superimposed, creating powerful polyrhythms that are perhaps the most striking and moving element of African music. In the same way that Bach might intermingle different but interrelated melodies in creating a fugue, an African ensemble would construct layer upon layer of rhythmic patterns, forging a counterpoint of time signatures, a polyphony of percussion. We will encounter this multiplicity of rhythm again and again in our study of African-American music, from the lilting syncopations of ragtime, to the diverse of offbeat accents of the bebop drummer, to the jarring cross-rhythms of the jazz avant-garde. "

Source: Washington Post History of Jazz, by Ted Gioia

I'd no more trust the word of a classical musician on jazz than I would Paul Johnson on the history of working class culture. Jazz is not merely a style- the patronising attitude of many classical musicians to jazz can account for the neglect and disrespect shown artists as creative and diverse as Scott Joplin and Duke Ellington, Thelonius Monk and Count Basie. Nina Simone, a pianist trained at Juilliard, can play Bach and Bechet with equal ease, and can even (as demonstrated in her live performances) improvise a jazz piece with a 'classical' feel. Why all this fuss about jazz? Any music that disgusted Himmler and Hitler and Stalin has got to be good.

[Frank Johnson]

USA for 1 reason......not military, or culturally, but that really helps. Its the CASH. Everyone wants in the US headed, "one-world" economy....

The terrorist attacks on the 11th represent what little of the restistance to this economic system remains on Earth.

You can argue that the US isn't just the US. Germany and Japan were rebuilt by the US, and our influance is there militarily, economicly, and culturally. The UK, Canada, Australia, etc...all became united in the US's one world cause in WW2, and the cold war....and as you can see now, the UK is usually attached to the US by the hip when it comes to most issues, just watch tony blair for awhile.

So......if you have a modern empire that consists of.......

United States
United Kingdom
Germany
Canada
Australia
Japan

And an economic system that pacifies almost the rest of the world.....wouldn't you think that the US is more powerful than is stated on this thread.....in fact the only active resistance to the US is being bombed and ran around various third world countries. You just don't know it because we don't send storm troops all over the world. We don't need to........

[Dinner]

Originally posted by pumph
The only difference is that America alone of all colonial powers followed a policy of effective genocide. This left a vast tract of land denuded of all population apart from the newly arriving settlers who were ethnically much alike and racially identical.

I must say that was very politically correct of you to say this, however, it isn't very historically accurate. Yes, U.S. policy was anti-native. Yes, many natives were killed and/or concined to reservations by the U.S. government. Does this mean the U.S. practiced genocide? Well let's examine a few facts...
The best estimates for North America's population in 1400 was some where between 20-25 million people, however, due to the introduction of Eurasian deseases the total population had falling to around 2-5 million by 1700 and kept falling after that. How can you blame the U.S. for this "genicide" when the country didn't even exist at the time and most of the deaths are attributable to death by desease?
If anyone would like to find out more about this interesting subject (and numerious others), or if you would like to double check these figures, then pick up a copy of the book "Guns, Germs, & Steel". It is a very inlightening book that explores the clash of Civilizations and how Geography gave Eurasian civs a huge head start.

[Serb]

Re: USA

Originally posted by MrNett
IMO it is not reasonable to argue that a nation is the most powerful/influential civ ever just because they are it now. Can you imagine how the situation was 150-200 years ago?! The British Empire had such a HUGE influence and impact to the rest of the world, without the help of modern communications!
To that times there was no other empire that was so powerful
like the British. There was no equal opponent regarding power, economy and influence!

You make a great mistake saying that. If you look at political map of 150-200 years old you can see that Russian Empire was MUCH bigger than even USSR at it's pick. I think that in that times was 3 major players on world political arena- Russia, British Empire and France. Napoleon was defeated by us and France start to loose it's power. British Empire loose it's colony's becouse they was too far away and native population of every colony have it's own culture, and treat British as invaiders. Russia never loose it's territory in result of riot- becouse it is one continus land based country whith one culture (actualy the termin- "colony" was never used by us). Oops, sorry I forget about big part of Persia wich was conquered by us in 19 century and about Prussia which was conquered by us in times of Emanuil Cant ( btw he was forced to become a citizen of Russian Empire ). Yes, those territories we was unable to assimilate. Russia never loose it's territory as result of military defeat with only one exeption - we lost half of Sahalin Island to Japan in 1905, but we take it back in 1945 after Japan was defeated by us. Alaska was sold to America, Finland and Poland was liberated by one of the first Bolshevik's laws after revolution in 1917. So if you don't have a 19 century's map, then plus this territories to the size of USSR and try to imagine how HUGE Russian Empire was. And don't say again that British Empire was the sole super power in that times.
Yes, the result of SU collapse was the terrible territory losses. The country created by generations was destroyed by dozen of betrayers. It was betrayl of memory of millon's russians who took their lives for our country. But even after that Russia still the largest country in the world.
So if you ask me Who is the largest empire for a longest period of time the answer be- RUSSIA.

Today the USA have equal opponents in several fields (for example economy: Germany, Japan! In military questions e.g. Russia or China!). Sure, the US have the modernest army of the world, but not necesseraly the most powerful.

Agreed. If you compare US Army with world's greatest armies in human history such as army of British Empire, Russian Empire, French, German or Spanish etc. (I don't even say about Rome) then you see that US Army is nothing. Armies can be judged ONLY BY VICTORY'S. Not by size or equipment, but ONLY BY VICTORY'S.
What are their victory's- defeat of Mexicans, or defeat of Iraq (not alone but in coalition with another countrys) ??? Or may be you think that they win war in Vietnam, or war in Korea? . Oops, I forget about Yugoslavia, may be you think that agression of dozen most idustrial contry's of the world against alone small country, they cowardly bombing- is a GREAT VICTORY? I think it's a shame but not victory. Only one country in the world was able to stand against the similar agression. You may find it funny but it was Russia. In 1917 after October revolution, the russian civil war began- the civil war is terrible tragedy by it self for any nation, but it wasn't the worse thing, during the civil war 1917-1921, Russia was under attack by 14 foreign invaders- 14!!! And they all was defeated, only whith Germany we was forced to sign a peace treaty which was bad for us (we lost a part of Ukraina by the terms of that treaty. Other 13 was simply crushed and no treaty signed. But less then one year after sign of that treaty, this territories was taken back.) But Yugoslavia it is not Russia. It's much smaller. Yugoslavia don't even have chance to win, but US was affraid to luanch gruond assult, the same thing we can see now in Afganistan they bombing from safe distanse but not lunch ground operation. They simply affraid to fight, and some of you guys trying to tell me that US Army is greatest army in all human history? It's nonsense.
I repeat any army can be judged ONLY BY VICTORY'S of that army, not by nomber of troops or weapons that army use (and btw if US Army have so superior weapons, than why they trying to steal blueprints of our weapons invented by us 30 ears ago? ), US Army don't have great victory's, so it can't be called the greatest army of all times. Sorry if hurt patriotic felings of someone but it's true.

[Albatou]

Alright, my 2 bits....

The question itself was 'who was the most powerful civ in all history?'
hmm...
Does that mean who spiked the highest, relative to the other civs of the time, or who has the largest "area under the graph" over time....?

In terms of spiking, I'd have to go with the Brits. Especially since it is up for grabs weather they and the Americans really qualify as seperate civilizations. (And I speak as a Yank, thank you.) Give us another hundred years and we'll have the area under the graph too.

Area under the graph? China. Powerful, significant in many ways throughout history. Now if they just hadn't had that eunich admiral burn his fleet in the 1400s, we'd probably be speaking Chinese now. We probably view them as less significant as they should be because only now are they emerging from one of their lowest troughs on the graph.

Hon. mention; Spain, Russia, Babylonians (who else can represent mideval Islam?), Rome. You can argue for the extreme cultural influence of the Greeks, but I don't think that translates into power.


Now to call this the postmodern era.... I'd object to that. Postmodernism is an originally French disease, and I hope that one bit of good that comes from the disaster in New York is that it is utterly and completely destroyed. Do a websearch on it, you'll see what I mean.
Allfornow, byebye!!!

[Dauphin]

The only difference is that America alone of all colonial powers followed a policy of effective genocide.

Have you even BEEN to the American South? I doubt so, or you would think otherwise.

I think that he meant native populations were killed off. "How many Iroquios or Cherokee people are there today?" kind of thing

[pumph]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Nina Simone, a pianist trained at Juilliard, can play Bach and Bechet with equal ease, and can even (as demonstrated in her live performances) improvise a jazz piece with a 'classical' feel.

Yes! That is exactly the point I was making! You left out Benny Goodman, who also had classical pieces specially written for and dedicated to him, and doubtless many others. And as to the reverse, all classical musicians can play jazz, how well they do at it depending mainly on how much sympathy they have for the style. They cannot however play the musics of Islam or India as their instruments cannot handle the tonal systems involved; they also cannot play African polyrhythmic music as we lack a notation sufficiently sophisticated to handle it, the modernist music of Ligeti being about the closest approximation we can get to it using our classical metric notation stretched to its limit.

Now the issue with jazz is that it *can* be performed on European instruments and easily and fully written down in our notation. Indeed, the piano is above all the instrument of the Industrial Revolution. Its history exactly parallels that of industrialization. So, while jazz was certainly created by African Americans, and doubtless with continuing reminiscences of a fading African heritage, the result clearly was a synthesis falling *within* what one might call the European musical tradition, technically perceived. It is essentially a musical style within the European technical canon; there is nothing overwhelmingly unique about it, at least not as much as is usually claimed.

(Please note that I am of course using "European" purely as a geographic, not as a racial description. One can hardly refer to "Western" music since the Russians share the same tradition).

Nietzche divided cultures into creators and synthesizers. America is clearly of the latter type. My argument was that the ultimate product of this secular synthesizing tradition is the Movie (Film), whether as mass culture or as art form, that the Movie has dominated the 20th Century which also happens to be now called the "American Century", and that there is where you need to look for a unique American contribution. Jazz is all too often trotted out to fulfill this role simply because the last book which everyone has read said so.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Any music that disgusted Himmler and Hitler and Stalin has got to be good.

As I recall it also disgusted Theodore Adorno, and he was a refugee from said Himmler and Hitler. This "My enemy's enemy is my friend" stuff doesn't work well even in foreign policy, let alone in cultural analysis.

[Edited to correct name of composer]

[S. Kroeze]

Hmmm...thanks for judging all of us on the stupidity shown by Hollywood. You think television stations are going to show the SMART people in American society? Hell no. Come over here and take a look. People aren't stupid.

It was not my intention to insult Americans, nor did I say they are stupid. What I did say was:
"I think the problem is that the average American knows next to nothing about the rest of the world and its 5000 years of history."

My main evidence is the discussion in this very thread!
The question of this poll is: what was the most powerful civilisation in all history?

My argument that the USA are not a civilisation is still valid!
(I hope you have read my quote of S.P.Huntington, an influential historian)
Most revealing is the answer of Fozzie:

I also question the reasoning that America and England are part of the same overall civilization. Perhaps you're unaware but England only had a hand in the original 13 colonies. The majority of the people in the US aren't decended from England nor do they live in an English founded state so how could they be part of the same civilization? I'm Germanic in descent and my state wasn't a state until 1821, long after England had gotten out of the area yet I'm lumped into this English civilization. England was a Monarchy when the US was founded, their society was nothing like ours yet we are lumped into the same civilization. Our government is/was different, our religion is/was different , our society is/was different yet somehow just because the first few states happened to be English colonies at one time we are just some type of mutant off-shoot of England and aren't deserving of the title "civilization". If we take out all the places that were created by people moving to a new area and making a culture and society for themselves then all we'll have is some ancient humans in Africa.

Apart from the fact that the dominant culture of America is still WASP and that the largest group of Americans have English-speaking ancestors, this statement about having a different religion is truly ridiculous!
Christianity is doubtless the dominant religion of the USA, whether the Roman Catholic or some Protestant variant. I do not think that any one with some common sense would deny that. Whether Americans use the New American Standard or New International Version Bible or the King James' Bible is completely irrelevant: it proves that North America shares with Europe the same 'Holy Book' which was compiled some 2000 years ago. Apart from religion -the most important binding agent of a civilisation- the USA also shares its language and literature with England, apart from many other things!
Or am I erring stating that Shakespeare is a mandatory part of the curriculum?

And I could go on about the common heritage of America and Europe, mentioning Montesquieu ('separation of powers')and the Enlightenment, Roman law, parliament, a monarch-like Presidency, the 'Puritans', Calvin, Greek philosophy, Israel, the architecture of the White House, the curriculum at the conservatories (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven)etc.

Yet what does the average American know about T'ang poetry, Buddhism, the Tale of Genji, the Islam, Afghanistan or Constantinople? You can compare the broadcasting of CNN and the BBC! And I think CNN is a good news agency.

One anecdote: during a news broadcast a Dutch journalist in New York was asked what the opinion was of the Americans about the war in Afghanistan. The answer: they do not speak about the war in Afghanistan, they only speak about the war in the USA: the WTC, anthrax and the plane crash!

And while it seems that the glory of the British and Roman Empires are well-known, the glory of Mesopotamia, the first and most influential civilisation ever, Egypt, China -as I said before, the Han-empire already equalled the Roman empire- Islam, the Spanish empire or France is hardly mentioned in this thread at all. So I think this thread illustrates my point most nicely.

[pumph]

Originally posted by Oerdin

I must say that was very politically correct of you to say this, however, it isn't very historically accurate. Yes, U.S. policy was anti-native. Yes, many natives were killed and/or concined to reservations by the U.S. government. Does this mean the U.S. practiced genocide?

I should have written "a policy which effectively resulted in genocide". I did not mean to imply that the policy was avowedly one of explicit genocide. My apologies. You may also replace it with "ethnic cleansing" if you like. I recall that it was de Tocqueville who wrote something to the effect that it would be impossible to exterminate an entire people "with more respect for the laws of humanity". An example of irony as only the French can produce it?

If you take the case of the Cherokee in Gerogia, for just one example, they were a settled friendly community with 18 English-language schools, 2000 spinning wheels, 700 looms, 31 mills and 8 cotton gins. Yet they were forced from their land in the direction of the Rockies and never heard from again, presumably destroyed. Bring that up before a modern international human rights tribunal and there could be only one outcome.