Which civ was the most powerful in all history?

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Jayis Solis

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.

Your knowledge is flawed, because Athenian democracy was absolute majority-rule without individual rights. Free speech? I think not.

[Sun Zi 36]

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

um..... the question is about power, m i not right? But i will kindly broaden my exmaple to more precisely include ur "cultural influence".

"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 cultural influence of ancient Babylonians who could hardly build brick roads and modern Russians who had planes and telecommunications that reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds? All i can see is a dismissal of clear logic in order to get to ur points."

BTW, ur main point:

"the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which was indisputably the first legal document in the history of the world to recognize unalienable human rights"

Is grossly misleading. By your standards, I could argue the Magna Carta recognised human rights.

From the Magna Carta
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

The US declaration of independence referred to "men" and used "he" as pronoun. So did the Magna Carta. At no point did they even use the word "humanity". While u could argue "men" and "he" are gender neutral in old English, what's the difference when it was effectively interpreted as gender (and especially racial) specific? Recognition on paper is far from recognition in action.

[Jayis Solis]

And kudos to you for correcting that flaw. Historical inaccuracy notwithstanding, the general sentiment I wished to convey was that the ideas inspired by Demosthenes and other Athenians live with us today.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

um..... the question is about power, m i not right? But i will kindly broaden my exmaple to more precisely include ur "cultural influence".

"...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? ..."

Okay, you concede the US has the most powerful culture, the most powerful military, and the most powerful economy. Great! What are you blabbering about?

But that is NOT the question. The question is in the past tense and referred to HISTORY.

Last year is history. Last month is history. Yesterday is history. Ten minutes ago is history. History includes the present. Throughout history, no other nation has been as powerful as the US is right now--not absolutely and not compared to contemporary powers.

Whats the point of comparing cultural influence of ancient Babylonians who could hardly build brick roads and modern Russians who had planes and telecommunications that reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds?

Don't confuse cultural power with technology. The point of comparing cultural power is to determine which civ is the most powerful. Or haven't you been listening?

All i can see is a dismissal of clear logic...

Yeah, me too.

BTW, ur main point:

Is grossly misleading. By your standards, I could argue the Magna Carta recognised human rights.

That's funny, because I don't remember seeing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" in the Magna Carta. My "standard" is what's written down on paper. All it takes is a pair of eyes to observe it.

At no point did they even use the word "humanity".

At no point did they use the word "philharmonic" either, but I'm pretty sure they meant the Declaration to apply to orchestras, too.

While u could argue "men" and "he" are gender neutral in old English, what's the difference when it was effectively interpreted as gender (and especially racial) specific?

No, it wasn't interpreted gender-specific. Women had the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as men. They had the same constitutional rights. They could own property, etc., etc. The only right they didn't have was the right to vote, but that was changed. Even if your facts were correct (unfortunately, they are not), it was still a HUGE step forward--for the entire world.

As far as race is concerned, I've already discussed it. Basically, arguing that US unalienable rights "don't count" is like arguing that the TVs from the 1950's "don't count" as televisions because they didn't have colour.

Recognition on paper is far from recognition in action.

Yeah, that's one of my points, and the US did both--it was absolutely the first country in the world to do so.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Jayis Solis
And kudos to you for correcting that flaw. Historical inaccuracy notwithstanding, the general sentiment I wished to convey was that the ideas inspired by Demosthenes and other Athenians live with us today.

But, what's your point?

[Arent]

Sun Zi:

I implore you: ignore him!

Best military today awards goes to:
China
(Dictatorship, nukes and huge population)

Best military in History awards goes to:
Rome
(Sparta had not much population, sorry)
(... as well as Prussia)

Arent

[Fozzie]

If your definition of a powerful military is sheer size then yes the Chinese will win by default due to their huge population. However if you define military power by the ability to use your power throughout the world then America has to be the top. Yes China would win if we were to invade them, but they don't have the ability to mobilize their military the way we do. The United States could mobilize its entire military power and deploy it anywhere in the world in a short amount of time, China just doesn't have that ability. Large numbers of troops and weapons is fine, but unless you can use them somewhere other than your own geographic area then that power is less effective.


For Sun Zi, yes today there are alot of cultures with similarities to ours but I don't believe any modern culture is truly unique. If you have contact with other peoples throughout the world then it is impossible to remain completely unlike those you meet. I don't believe any culture today is as unique as they were in the past. Even countries on the list that nobody argues against such as France, England, Russia, Japan, etc. who have made it to modern times are no longer totally unique, but they are allowed by those opposed to the US being on the list due to the fact that they once had a unique culture. Now if having a unique culture in the past is qualification enough then the US should definitely be in. The western united states is full of unique culture and heritage all its own, unlike anywhere in the world. The era of cowboys and indians and settlers traveling west was unlike anything else I'm aware of.

Even if our past isn't enough to make us unique, how about the fact that we are not unique? I for one believe it's our differences that makes us unique. The fact that we can have people from every single country in the world come here and identify themselves as American and be welcomed as Americans is unique. The fact that in under 250 years of history a vast number of people from all creeds and races came together to form what is said by many to be the most powerful country at this time is an amazing thing, unlike anything that has happened in history. I'm not one to chest beat or boast or anything like that but I am truly proud of this fact, it makes me proud to be part of it. And if that doesn't qualify us as a unique culture then I don't know what else we can do to try to appease you.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by IncreduloDriver

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.

Ok, this was my last attempt to make a rational and emotionless discussion with you. Your constant insults hurled at anyone you disagree with is not only annoying, but indicative of glaringly bad manners.

Following some hunch, I checked your profile - however, quite expectedly, you refrained from posting your birth date. As you are likely some bad-mouthed teenager, I don't find continuing this tedious discussion to be worthy of my time. If you are older, it paints much more sadder picture of your mental condition, otoh. Please grow up and mature a bit. Even if you think you are right, it doesn't entail you to be an annoying troglodyte

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

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?

Thank you so much for presuming to teach me what culture means. There is East Coast Jazz, West Coast Jazz, ragtime, big band, bebop, ad infinitem. If you had bothered to investigate properly the links I put up you might have undrstood why jazz developed in America and nowhere else, and is distinctly American. They play Northumbrian pipes in North-East England; are you seriously suggesting it is 'only' North East English culture (whatever that might be) and not English culture?

"Culture is everything. Culture is the way we dress, the way we carry our heads, the way we walk, the way we tie our ties -- it is not only the fact of writing books or building houses."

Aime Cesaire, Martiniquen writer, speaking to the World Congress of Black Writers and Artists in Paris [source: Petras and Petras]

"Culture is like the sum of special knowledge that accumulates in any large united family and is the common property of all its members. When we of the great Culture Family meet, we exchange reminiscences about Grandfather Homer, and that awful old Dr. Johnson, and Aunt Sappho, and poor Johnny Keats."

Aldous Huxley [source: Flesch]

"Culture is but the fine flowering of real education, and it is the training of the feeling the tastes and the manners that makes it so."

Minnie Kellogg, Iroquois leader [source: Petras and Petras]

I would suggest it is you who has trouble in recognising what culture is.

[Pyrodrew]

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.

Again... look up the DEFINITION(s) of culture. No one cares how YOU define it.

[vovan]

I'll tell ya which civ was the most powerful in all history: Israel. They've never lost a single war! And they've had quite some wars! Of course, they were helped somewhat... But, oh well...
Voted for Germany, though.

[dexters]

I give up. no one is willing to engage in civil discussion.

[Sun Zi 36]

Arent, Martinus and Frozzie:
I feel so much pity not being able to get an informative discussion going. Theres always these people stirred up by their personal feelings and disturb the discussion by going on about non-issues.

Dexters:

"I give up. no one is willing to engage in civil discussion."

thats what typically happens when u start a discussion about America.

Martinus:
Forget about looking up profiles. Will u really believe what people say about themselves here? Thats why i dont even bother putting in any profiles. Besides, their age doesn't really tell anything. It's their arguments. And the polls. Do u really think someone wouldn't try to create 10 accounts and boost their votes?

IncreduloDriver, IncreduloDriver..........:

"Okay, you concede the US has the most powerful culture, the most powerful military, and the most powerful economy. Great! What are you blabbering about?"

bcos thats not even the issue me and martinus was arguing................ I find it unbelievable indeed that u did not understand.

"Last year is history. Last month is history. Yesterday is history. Ten minutes ago is history. History includes the present. Throughout history, no other nation has been as powerful as the US is right now--not absolutely and not compared to contemporary powers."

Sigh........ that's what we told u to not do. do not assess power absolutely and compare to contemporary powers.

"Don't confuse cultural power with technology. The point of comparing cultural power is to determine which civ is the most powerful. Or haven't you been listening?"

Hahahaha..... i haven't actually. bcos i cannot commit myself to read arguments that are so illogical. Sigh.... there seems to be a clear failure to understand. The question isn't even just about cultural power. How can u spread "cultural power" without adequate communications technology? Again i ask u "The poll maker is not stupid. Whats the point of comparing cultural power of ancient Babylonians who could hardly build brick roads to spread them and modern Russians who have planes and telecommunications that reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds to spread them?"

Pls try and think about other peoples opinions first b4 going straight into ur own outbursts. I cannot be bothered to argue the other point i raised against u.

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.

The difference between ur methiod of defining culture and the method by Frozzie in his previous post is that Frozzie identified the culture first, and then associated with it the people in the geographical location who are practising it. Ur method involved identifying the people in the geographical location first, and then attribute culture to them, which i think is wrong. Ur method would undermine the true meaning of culture.

Frozzie:

"Even if our past isn't enough to make us unique, how about the fact that we are not unique? I for one believe it's our differences that makes us unique."

This is one argument people often raised which i think is flawed. it implies that "the fact that it is ten cultures means it is one culture." The argument ignores the definition of culture again in favour of some other divisions.

[IncreduloDriver]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
IncreduloDriver, IncreduloDriver..........:

bcos thats not even the issue me and martinus was arguing................ I find it unbelievable indeed that u did not understand.

Okay, if you're not arguing the issue of the most powerful civ in history, what the heck are you doing? Maybe you didn't see the poll? Maybe you haven't been reading the thread?

Sigh........ that's what we told u to not do. do not assess power absolutely and compare to contemporary powers.

Okay, you don't want me to compare civs' power to their contemporaries. You don't want me to compare civs' power to modern civilisations. Thus, you've told me not to assess which was the greatest civ in history. But wait, that's what the poll asks us to do....

Hahahaha..... i haven't actually. bcos i cannot commit myself to read arguments that are so illogical.

Okay, so you've admitted that you haven't read any of my arguments (never mind the fact that you can't determine if an argument is logical or not without reading it). What's the point of attempting to discuss anything if you're not willing to read other people's statements?

Sigh.... there seems to be a clear failure to understand.

The question isn't even just about cultural power.

Earlier in the thread, we defined pretty well what the question is. Since you've already stated that you don't read my posts, I guess that explains your ignorance of it.

How can u spread "cultural power" without adequate communications technology?

Should we make communications technology the standard of power now? Or should we throw out all forms of communications and rely on cultural power as measured by Sun Zi's personal, arbitrary standard of worthiness?

Again i ask u "The poll maker is not stupid. Whats the point of comparing cultural power of ancient Babylonians who could hardly build brick roads to spread them and modern Russians who have planes and telecommunications that reach anywhere in the world in a few seconds to spread them?"

Asked and answered, several times.

Pls try and think about other peoples opinions first b4 going straight into ur own outbursts. I cannot be bothered to argue the other point i raised against u.

You've never raised any points against anything I've said, so I suppose that won't be a problem. But at least I give you the respect of reading your posts.

Please, somebody make an argument here. I've posted everything I need to say in my previous posts. Re-read them if necessary (or for the first time, in Sun Zi's case). Read the beginning of the thread where we talked about what cultural power is. Then make an arguement--anything other than "do nt mesure civ powre by cultre pls bcos communicaton technologe"

[Sun Zi 36]

"Sun Zi:

I implore you: ignore him!"

Arent, I understand ur feelings. It is just really a waste of time to argue against some people. However, i m on holidays right now, what i got is time. For the welfare of the people who read this board, I wont be deterred.

"Okay, if you're not arguing the issue of the most powerful civ in history, what the heck are you doing? Maybe you didn't see the poll? Maybe you haven't been reading the thread?"

In case u don't realise, this is an insulting statement. People who are polite would apologise. However, do u think I will be deterred by such rudeness? u will be mistaken if u do. I would advise u to restrain ur rudeness if u want to continue to enjoy live from these forums.

"Okay, you don't want me to compare civs' power to their contemporaries. You don't want me to compare civs' power to modern civilisations. Thus, you've told me not to assess which was the greatest civ in history. But wait, that's what the poll asks us to do.... "

The things that are deduced in the argument is just unbelievable. The first and second sentences just doesn't lead to the third as claimed.

"Okay, so you've admitted that you haven't read any of my arguments (never mind the fact that you can't determine if an argument is logical or not without reading it). What's the point of attempting to discuss anything if you're not willing to read other people's statements?"

Again, the way arguments are deduced here is just amazing. It does not even realise a statement preceded by "Hahaha..." means it is an ironic joke.

"Earlier in the thread, we defined pretty well what the question is."

And then there is this amazing claim that his definition were agreed upon by others when it clearly was not.

"Should we make communications technology the standard of power now? Or should we throw out all forms of communications and rely on cultural power as measured by Sun Zi's personal, arbitrary standard of worthiness?"

Again the level of imagination shown by the arguments is just out of hand. It is able to deduce from an example using telecommunication to the fact that it should be the standard of power. And then there is a criticism about other people's standards by just branding it as "arbitray".

"Please, somebody make an argument here. I've posted everything I need to say in my previous posts."

And then theres an urge for people to argue against him when all the arguments raised were non-issues. All the lack of logic in the arguments, as shown above, explains why no-one bothered to counter-argue.

[HugoHillbilly]

Ive been enjoying reading this thread, its been real interesting.

I wonder why noone has brought the Arab culture into this discussion? The current "Western" culture is just as heavily influenced by the Arab culture as Roman culture.

Im no scholar, but isnt our math system based completely on the Arabic systems? Algebra sure isnt a Latin word, and were not using Roman numerals (except for fancy art for sequels like Civ III

[Martinus]

Originally posted by vovansim
I'll tell ya which civ was the most powerful in all history: Israel. They've never lost a single war! And they've had quite some wars! Of course, they were helped somewhat... But, oh well...
Voted for Germany, though.

Wow, what a troll

Are you referring only to modern Israel or to Israeli state including its ancient incarnation? If the former, well, I bet there are many more countries in the world that hasn't lost a single war in their 50 YEAR OLD history.

If you are including the ancient state, then your statement is blatantly untrue.

[Dauphin]

I'll tell ya which civ was the most powerful in all history: Israel. They've never lost a single war!

Neither has Switerland.

[Fresno]

This is my first post on this thread. It is much too long to read entirely, so I'll just drop in here.

I wonder why we can't vote for the Jews. Don't forget three large religions (Christian, Muslim, and of course, Jewish) have their roots in this civilization. In my opinion, it is the most influential of alls civs. However, I know they never ruled a large empire.

I voted the Romans. They exported the Greek civilization and Christianity to the rest of Europe, AND they were very powerful.

I think it is ridiculous to see America as the most important civilization ever. I think they shouldn't even be included in the game, but that subject is already dealt with in another thread.

[J10]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
Pls do not twist facts. America is called Mer Kuo bcos it translates to that pronounciation which in coincidence means Beautiful Country. "Mei" is just the short hand for the full translation.

Yes. It's the translation, and Mei can be pronounced to mean quite a few things, the most popular way of saying Mei Kuao when referring to America is actually not such a positive word, if that reflects what peeps think about America at all


IncreduloDriver, it may be offtopic, but it would help if you change your "from:" field to something else other than People's Republic of China. I dunno, it's just easlier to follow if you don't mis-state where you come from... and if you're not Chinese but just residing in China at the moment, then forget I asked.

[S. Kroeze]

I admire all posters trying to enlighten IncreduloDriver! (nomen=omen)

Why the USA cannot be the most powerful civilization in all history?

The answer is most simple:
Yes, at this present moment the USA is the most powerful nation on earth -militarily and economically, NOT culturally- BUT

• The USA hardly have a history

AND (far more important, actully this is a completely devastating argument):

• The USA are NOT a CIVILISATION, though they are at this moment the most powerful nation of the Western CIVILISATION!

On a side-note I would like to add that History is not over yet! Doubtless some day some other nation will be more powerful than the USA is today. I understand it may be difficult to stomach the truth.

[Fozzie]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
[/list]AND (far more important, actully this is a completely devastating argument):

• The USA are NOT a CIVILISATION, though they are at this moment the most powerful nation of the Western CIVILISATION!

Actually that's not a devastating argument, it's a ridiculous argument. If the USA is not a civilisation then England isn't, France isn't, Germany isn't, nor any other modern country. Aside from language or facial features no modern country is truly unique unto itself. Were they unique earlier in history? Sure, but so was the US. Name one country that was the same as the US in the 1800s and I'll eat my hat. Name one country with the same history as the US. You can't do it because there has never been a country with a similar heritage or history.

Civilization: The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch

There's been lots of people saying our society is modeled on some old greek's ideas or some Roman's writings in some book, but the fact is that the US was the first country to have this society. The ideas and methods may have been distilled from others ideas, but ideas aren't acts. I believe the reason that the US is said not to be unique is that others have learned from us, not the other way around. Were the Romans unique because others became like them? If others follow your model does it make you less original? Pretty sure the answer to that one is no.

Then we have the excellent argument of the length of time that the US has been around. This is the one sticking point I had to think a bit about. Age is important when you're talking about history, and the US certainly isn't very old compared to some of the civs on the list. They've not been a world power as long as alot of the countries on the list either. However their current stint as the top power in the world (or co-leader if you count Russia previously) is as long as alot of other civilizations' "Golden Eras" so I believe that matter is negligible. Alot of the Civs on that list were never the recognized major power in the whole of the world so should they be disallowed too?


[rant]

Alot of people say that Americans are overproud or I don't know.. conceited about America's place in the world but I feel that there's just as many people in the world who are overanxious to try to cut America down. I know why Americans talk big, we were brought up to. Every morning I stood up in class and said the pledge of allegience to the flag. Everyday I'd read how some American had accomplished some great thing or how America had been the first to do something. My question is, why do others feel that they need to spend just as much time cutting down America as we do building it up? Why don't you instead spend time talking about the good things in your countries rather than the bad things in ours? We know the bad things in our country. We know better than you the problems we have. We don't need your help seeing them. I know the knee-jerk reaction to somebody beeing boastful about something their country has done is to try to cut into their boast, but it's not really necessary. Instead work up a nice boast about something your country has done, tell the people about something Finland or the Netherlands or Russia or whatever country you reside in has done that makes you feel good about living there. I only know about countries from history books because the people living there usually spend too much time telling me how America screwed up in Vietnam or telling me about slavery rather than talking about their history or culture.

I know my country's history.

[/rant]

[Dauphin]

Alot of the Civs on that list were never the recognized major power in the whole of the world so should they be disallowed too?

They should be. I fail to see how anyone can claim the Aztecs or Zulus to be the most powerful in history.

Of the top three poll contenders lets look at the facts:

Romans. Latin is one of the International languages for scientific nomenclature. Responisble for the spread of Christianity throughout Europe. Conquered more territory than any other empire (in terms of communications and military movement "time" distances). Was the most dominant stand alone power for several centuries

English: Economic and Industrial heart of the globe, during the 19th Century was the "workshop of the world" producing more manufactured goods than any other country. Possessed the largest navy in the world for over a century. Possessed more territory than any other nation for over a century. English is the most commonly known language in all the world. Has been the source for most democratic systems (as in the number of people who live under that system) in the world

USA. Has been the world largest economy for a century. Has been the world's strongest military for a decade. Has been the largest "cultural" exporter since the mass media age began.


From that I would say the Romans top by far for shear dominance for seveal centuries. The English are second for the global impact. At present the English presence is still in the fabric of most societies more than the US is. If the US is still the world leader in 50-100 years the story will change and they may take number two spot. If they want number one then they have to be world leader up until the the 25th century.

Thats my twopence.

[HalfLotus]

The United States of America.

[Sun Zi 36]

Finally we r having some sense in this discussion for a while.

Frozzie:

"If the USA is not a civilisation then England isn't, France isn't, Germany isn't, nor any other modern country. Aside from language or facial features no modern country is truly unique unto itself. Were they unique earlier in history? Sure, but so was the US. Name one country that was the same as the US in the 1800s and I'll eat my hat. Name one country with the same history as the US. You can't do it because there has never been a country with a similar heritage or history."

I would disagree with how u deduced this, especially how u used civilisation and country interchangeablly in your first sentence. Remember civilisation and country mean different things so a civilisation can inculde many countries. (or many civilsations can exist within a country). That's wat Kroeze meant: the countries America, England are part of a greater civ.

Yes, i agree no modern country (or group of people to be more accurate) is truely unique. But there are clearly degrees of uniqueness. And the degree of uniqueness is one of the things i would take into account to decide whether it is a civ.

"My question is, why do others feel that they need to spend just as much time cutting down America as we do building it up? Why don't you instead spend time talking about the good things in your countries rather than the bad things in ours? We know the bad things in our country. We know better than you the problems we have. We don't need your help seeing them."

I dont really think this is necessary comment. We are all just participating in an objective, informative discussion. Everyone is free to have their opinions and express them sensibly.

[Fozzie]

I used the word country in exchange for nation which was in the definition I posted after that paragraph.

"Civilization: The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch"

We are a nation and we have now and have had throughout our short history a distinct culture and society. Seems to me to fit the definition of a civilization just fine.

As for my rant, it was based mainly on rereading the thread and seeing the mentions of slavery or the debacle in Vietnam as a means to cut down America. It is just so obvious that as soon as somebody made a "who is the most powerful civ" thread that the thread would turn to pro-America or anti-America. It happens every time. Nobody complains about Germany being on the list yet Germany the country really doesn't fit that well. So unless the listmaker is using country and civilization interchangeably then Germany the country has never been a superpower aside from the few years earlier this century so it too shouldn't be on the list.

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.

[Sun Zi 36]

OK, this is the definition of "civilization" from dictionary.com:

"civ¡Pi¡Pli¡Pza¡Ption (sv-l-zshn)
n.
1.An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2.The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3.The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
4.Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains."

Obviously u were using the 2nd one which is fine, and i think the first definition is relevant too. But even in the 2nd definition "nation" is not the determinative condition for a civilisation. The definition suggests that a civilisation can be either of a nation OR region conditional upon "The type of culture and society". By the defintion, "The type of culture and society" goes first then the region or nation which it is developed by. So i would still think that using the words "nation" and "civilisation" interchangeably is incorrect.

To the second (actually should have been considered first and the more important) point, whether there is a definitive "type of culture and society", i would argue no for the Americans. This is not just bcos of the fact that America began as English colonies, but bcos as I said b4, "the culture and society" itself is not unique enough compared to many civs that are on the list.

[S. Kroeze]

our religion is/was different

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?

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.

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.

"What do we mean when we talk about a civilisation? A civilisation is a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from German villages. European communities, in turn, will share cultural features that distinguish them from Arab or Chinese communities. Arabs, Chinese and westerners, however, are not part of any broader cultural entity. They constitute civilisations.

A civilisation is thus the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people. People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European , a westerner. The civilisation to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he intensely identifies. People can and do redefine their identities and, as a result, the composition and boundaries of civilisations change.

Civilisations may involve a large number of people, as with China ("a civilisation pretending to be a state," as Lucian Pye put it), or a small number of people, such as the Anglophone Caribbean. A civilisation may include several nation states, as is the case with western, Latin American and Arab civilisations, or only one, as is the case with Japanese civilisation.

Civilisations obviously blend and overlap, and may include subcivilisations. Western civilisation has two big variants, European and North American, and Islam has its Arab, Turkic and Malay subdivisions. Civilisations are nonetheless meaningful entities, and while the lines between them are seldom sharp, they are real. Civilisation are dynamic: they rise and fall, they divide and merge. And, as any student of history knows, civilisations disappear and are buried in the sands of time.

Westerners tend to think of nation states as the principal actors in global affairs. They have been that, however, for only a few centuries. The broader reaches of human history have been the history of civilisations. In A Study of History, Arnold Toynbee identified 21 major civilisations; only six of them exist in the contemporary world. Civilisation identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interaction among seven or eight main civilisations. These include western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possbly African civilisation. The most important conflicts will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilisations from one another.

Why will this be the case? First, differences among civilisations are not only real, they are basic. Civilisations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and most important, religion. The people of different civilisations have different views on the relation between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy.

These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes."
(Source: S.P.Huntington; 'The clash of civilisations',1993)

Alot of people say that Americans are overproud or I don't know.. conceited about America's place in the world but I feel that there's just as many people in the world who are overanxious to try to cut America down. I know why Americans talk big, we were brought up to. Every morning I stood up in class and said the pledge of allegience to the flag. Everyday I'd read how some American had accomplished some great thing or how America had been the first to do something. My question is, why do others feel that they need to spend just as much time cutting down America as we do building it up?

I have admitted the USA is at the present moment the most powerful nation on earth, though I also argued it isn't a civilisation. Yet this poster only reacts to my rejection. It confirms my idea that many Americans can't bear the thought they might be second-best in any respect.
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!

About the length of political dominance:
before 1550 one cannot speak of world dominance. I would propose this list:
Spanish Empire (~1550-~1650)
France (~1650-~1760)
British Empire (~1760-~1920)
USA (~1920- ?

Yet I didn't vote for the British Empire, nor for the Roman Empire, of which the hey-day lasted about four centuries. I voted for China, the fourth-oldest major civilisation. The Han-empire was as large as the Roman Empire and had as many inhabitants. Its cultural radiation deeply influenced Japan, Korea and South-East Asia. Unlike the Roman Empire and civilisation, the Chinese civilisation didn't disappear but was politically united again. From ~800 till ~1400 China was by far the most advanced civilisation on earth. And today China is clearly one of the few major powers in the world. My guess is, its importance can only increase.

[Sun Zi 36]

"I have admitted the USA is at the present moment the most powerful nation on earth, though I also argued it isn't a civilisation."

I am exactly with u on this.

"Yet I didn't vote for the British Empire, nor for the Roman Empire, of which the hey-day lasted about four centuries. I voted for China, the fourth-oldest major civilisation. The Han-empire was as large as the Roman Empire and had as many inhabitants. Its cultural radiation deeply influenced Japan, Korea and South-East Asia. Unlike the Roman Empire and civilisation, the Chinese civilisation didn't disappear but was politically united again. From ~800 till ~1400 China was by far the most advanced civilisation on earth. And today China is clearly one of the few major powers in the world. My guess is, its importance can only increase"

I m also exactly with u on this. I would also like to add that this is the correct approach to answer the poll question, not to take an absolute scale to compare modern and ancient cultures.

I also almost completely agree with u and Hungtington on the definition of civilisation. Although a civilisation to be used in a computer game may not necessarily have to parallel reality exactly.


It's nice to know someone has almost the same ideas as your own. It's not very easy to fiind such, especially in this kind of issue.

[Fozzie]

I've stated my position on the subject and am not one to restate it over and over till a heated argument ensues so I'll leave it where it is.