|
Grex > Agora41 > #112: Why Americans ,in general, are so dumb in geography? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 360 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 225 of 360:
| 
May 19 21:13 UTC 2002 |
We aren't?
|
slynne
|
|
response 226 of 360:
|
May 19 21:24 UTC 2002 |
We are, but we like to pretend we are old money ;)
|
jp2
|
|
response 227 of 360:
|
May 19 21:41 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 228 of 360:
|
May 19 23:35 UTC 2002 |
The US won the wars because it was rich, not vice versa. Riches came from
invading a new continent where the original inhabitants had not despoiled the
arable land, having them conveniently mostly die off of disease, and getting
lots of free land so that we can now export lots of food to make money.
India cannot export food because it needs to feed its people instead.
|
senna
|
|
response 229 of 360:
|
May 19 23:40 UTC 2002 |
We're not rich because we can export food, but our domestic resources *were*
the major reason we became so powerful. The food issue is relevant only
insomuch as we are able to feed essentially our entire population, including
enough to feed soldiers fighting overseas.
|
jp2
|
|
response 230 of 360:
|
May 19 23:46 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
senna
|
|
response 231 of 360:
|
May 20 00:01 UTC 2002 |
We really didn't become a major world power until the 20th century.
|
jp2
|
|
response 232 of 360:
|
May 20 00:07 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
avin
|
|
response 233 of 360:
|
May 20 00:16 UTC 2002 |
attn#227 , Sweden is still declared as a constitutional monarchy and had its
constituion formed on Jan1, 1975. (india 26th Jan, 1950)
Iceland..June16,1944..still very much dependent on the US ..funnt mentioning
that it doesn;t even has a military
GBR , unwritten constitution, partly common law and practice, partly statues.
UK of GB and Northern Ireland consttitutional monarchy.
thanx
|
jp2
|
|
response 234 of 360:
|
May 20 00:28 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 235 of 360:
|
May 20 00:38 UTC 2002 |
re 228 Please remember the civil war (US) 1861 to 1865
Please read the history of US - persecution & extermination of the indigenous
Americans culminated in massacre of 200 Ogala Sioux at wounded Knee in 1890
US becomes rich not due to food export but may be due to slave trading
The help extended by US to "poor " nations by supplying food - please remember
the scheme PL180
|
jp2
|
|
response 236 of 360:
|
May 20 00:49 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 237 of 360:
|
May 20 01:01 UTC 2002 |
I don't think slave trading was all that beneficial, economically. In fact,
there are arguments that it set back the South's economy. It was quite a
drain on resources. For that matter, in parts of the world where slavery is
still practiced (and there are quite a few) it hardly seems to be bringing
prosperity. I don't think it had much to do with the U.S. becoming a
superpower. I think the U.S. became so rich partly due to an abundance of
natural resources, partly due to an economic system that encouraged
entrepeneurism, and partly due to rapid technological development. Or
rather, those three things working together.
I hadn't realized India wasn't at all interested in invading foreign
countries. I'm sure Pakistan will be relieved to hear they have nothing to
worry about, and that all those soldiers on their border are just out having
a picnic...
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 238 of 360:
|
May 20 01:57 UTC 2002 |
He'll probably use the PRC's argument: "It's actually part of us, so it
doesn't count as invading..."
|
gelinas
|
|
response 239 of 360:
|
May 20 02:08 UTC 2002 |
And the folks in Sri Lanka will be equally relieved.
|
hank2pas
|
|
response 240 of 360:
|
May 20 02:13 UTC 2002 |
why i am here?
e
|
mdw
|
|
response 241 of 360:
|
May 20 02:27 UTC 2002 |
Re #235 - slavery and indians were almost entirely separate. By &
large, the settlers were most keen on relocating the indians. If they
couldn't be relocated, extermination was an unfortunately common
consequence. The main reason the settlers were so keen on relocating
the indians was to better exploit resources the indians were sitting on,
most often farm land, but sometimes minerals, etc. Indians were only
rarely used as forced labor in this country; they were generally
considered to be too savage, also they were too vulnerable to european
diseases, so weren't well suited to life in captivity (ie, they tended
to die off quickly.)
Slavery in the american colonies initially consisted of old world
criminals, most often european. Many white americans today are
descendents of these early slaves. Later on, slavery consisted of
importing slave labour from Africa, and putting them to work on southern
cotton plantations. The people who owned these slaves were almost
universally reduced to financial ruin as a consequence of the civil war:
there is no significant amount of 20th century american riches based on
absolute slavery within the confines of the USA.
|
janc
|
|
response 242 of 360:
|
May 20 03:44 UTC 2002 |
Re 223: I haven't the faintest idea if I want the US to be a superpower.
Historically, we've screwed up pretty badly. I think I'd rather have some kind
of world government that maintains some sort of sensible balance of power among
nations, but I'm not optimistic about seeing anything like that in my lifetime
(though their are trends - the EU, the alliance building before the Gulf War,
etc.). For the time being, as long as we live in a "might makes right" world,
I think there are worse bearers of the might than America.
I'm no expert on Indian history, but my impression is that it's somewhat
similar to German history, which I do know about. The nation of German was
created in 1871 - only 130 years ago. Before that there was never a single
government ruling all of Germany, or even any substantial portion of it. If you
asked Germans to identify themselves, they wouldn't say "German" they'd say
"Prussian" or "Mecklenburger" or "Silesian" or "Westphalian". I'm not going to
list them all, because around 1650 there were 300 recognized autonomous
principalitities and 1500 semi-sovereign bodies (a few of them consisting of
just one person). Yeah, they all spoke sort of the same language and were
vaguely Germanic, but they weren't a nation, like France or England were.
And do you know, before 1871, the Germans never invaded any other nation
either. This wasn't due to lack of warlike character, as two subsequent World
Wars demonstrated. It was because there were no Germans to invade anyone. The
Prussians were invading everyone left and right. Mostly other German states,
but occasionally France too. They were having wars all the time. Napolean
conquered them all and reorganized them into a more easily administratable
collection of just 16 states. It was Bismark, a Prussian, who finally used a
power of military power and dirty tricks to unify them all into on nation,
which 40 years later proved it's usefulness by declaring war on the world.
German nationalism was a brand new thing when Germans started declaring their
nation the greatest of all, destined by God to rule the world.
The Germanic people have a proud cultural history of mostly barbarism going
back to the stone age. The German nation is a new thing, much younger than the
American nation.
India is, of course, not exactly the same. The cultural history there
certainly includes a lot that is not barbarism, and since becoming a nation,
India has been substantially better behaved than Germany. However, though I
don't know as much Indian history as German history, I'm pretty sure I'm not
mistaken in seeing points of similarity. Before the English conquered India,
the Indian continent was never under the rule of a single, unified government.
Instead it a collection of many separate princedoms, often at war with each
other. If you had asked various common people living in India at that time
what "nationality" they had, none of them would have said "Indian". They all
would have identified themselves with one princedom or another. Being a bigger
place, India was in many ways even more fragmented than Germany. At least the
Germans had a common language. If you had asked a person from south India and
north India if they were from the same nation, they would have laughed at you.
Am I wrong? Like I say, Indian history is not a subject I claim expertize on,
but I think I have the broad story right. India as a culture is certainly very
old. India as a nation is, what, a quarter America's age?
You say India never invaded anyone. Well, Pakistanis might want to point at
the presence of Indian troups in "their" province of Kashmir or point at the
invasion of East Pakistan in 1971, but Pakistanis will say all sorts of crazy
things won't they? I'll accept your claim that at no time in it's 50 year
history has India invaded any other nation. Big whoopy.
You talk about "when India was at it's peak". When was that exactly? Right
now, I'd say.
You dismiss the ability of Britain to conquer India because the Industrial
Revolution arrived their sooner than in other places, as if in slightly
different circumstances it might have arrived in India first. The Industrial
Revolution didn't come to Europe on a train. It was invented there and in
America, from the ground up. The rest of the world got it second hand, mostly
fired out of the end of a gun. Sorry. The question of why it happened in
Europe is a very complex one and the answer has more to do with the violence of
European history than with the special brightness of Europeans, but it isn't a
coincidence.
Yeah, you resent when we say "look at me and hear me. I am the master." Well,
most of the time we are actually quite polite. However you did come in here
and demonstrate the refinement you inherited from India's rich history by
starting your conversation with us by asking "Why Americans, in general, are so
dumb?" That rather set the standard for the level of politeness required in
this conversation.
Re 228: "The US won the wars because it was rich, not vice versa."
Being rich helped win the wars, but the wars made us richer. WWII provided the
engine for a tremendous build-up of American Industrial capacity. At the same
time, it obliterated a lot of Europe's industrial capacity.
Re 235: Sarkhel, you aren't reading. You ask Sindi to read US history to find
out about the nasty things the US government did to Native Americans. But
Sindi said that. We're all perfectly aware that we Europeans did our best to
commit genocide, and every single one of us can give more detailed information
about the whole business than you can. You have the idea in your head that we
all think America is wonderful. Read what we're saying. Most of the responses
by Americans to this item are full of explicit or implicit criticism of
America's past and present policies. You aren't proving anything by mention
this or that bad thing we did. We know all about it. We rant about them from
time to time too. The only person saying "my country is wonderful, wonderful,
wonderful" is you. Well, that's OK. Americans used to behave that way too,
back a century ago when nationalism was a new shiny toy.
|
janc
|
|
response 243 of 360:
|
May 20 03:45 UTC 2002 |
Oops. Correction. Sarkhel didn't post the original item. Sorry.
|
senna
|
|
response 244 of 360:
|
May 20 05:10 UTC 2002 |
I'm not sure what the civil war has to do with any of this. The
government was still functioning, although several states declined to
participate. The US definitely didn't get rich by the slave trade-
before abolition, the South was already lagging behind the North's
economy, and the economy really only took off with industrialization,
mostly in the north. Granted, working conditions weren't that much of
an improvement, but they've gotten better.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 245 of 360:
|
May 20 13:24 UTC 2002 |
>The question of why it happened in
>Europe is a very complex one and the answer has more to do with the
>violence of European history than with the special brightness of
>Europeans, but it isn't a coincidence.
I wouldn't attribute it to violence so much as geographic accident.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 246 of 360:
|
May 20 17:46 UTC 2002 |
bdh3- What's your point? Many in the PRC think that the US is made up
solely of caucasians. You're going to find examples of ignorance
everywhere you go. As for your trivia question. Now keep in mind, I'm
making rough/general directional descriptions . . . That would be Xin
Jiang province, which is west of Gansu province and north of Qing Hai
province, which is north of Sichuan Province and and Xi Zang, otherwise
known as Tibet. Would you like me to point out Shanghai Guan, Da Tong
or Ping Xiang on a map? Not all Americans are ignorant of geography,
and generalizing to such a degree is insulting to everyone's
intelligence.
Sharkhel, you may want to read up on the finer points of debate. Using
such gross generalizations is a very infantile form of argument, one
that is easily dismissed, refuted, and generally reveals the person who
uttered such nonsense as one having little substance.
The fundamental difference here, it seems, is that we (in this item)
are willing to admit that, as a nation, there are some areas which
should be dramatically improved in the US, that our nation has made and
continues to make mistakes. We also agree that there are those who
don't know much beyond their home town or county. However you will
find that anywhere, including among your countrymen. Clearly your
ignnorant tirade, replete with ill-copied rhetoric speaks to your
fundamental lack of knowledge about anything beyond what you've seen on
television . . . of course I question your accuracy in that department
as well. Unlike yourself, we neither assume that you are
representative of your entire nation, nor do we believe that a nation's
government is completely reflective of the beliefs and wishes of the
people it represents, or that all citizens share the same views.
Clearly you do not return a courtesy that is the mark of a mature mind.
|
avin
|
|
response 247 of 360:
|
May 20 18:13 UTC 2002 |
Just to clear up the confusion again, it was me whao posted the item and it
was me who had lived there for a couple years. Personally , I like the
Americans a lot ..they had been good to me and I stll have some wonderful
friends.
re: item#0, this is mostly borne out of my dealings with the general
public..the one whom you come across in bus-stops, super markets, grocery
stores. banks, etc etc.
|
sarkhel
|
|
response 248 of 360:
|
May 20 20:55 UTC 2002 |
re 237, 241, 246:When India was its peak: India was its peak long before when
America was dicovered by "mistake", wanted to go to the "land of gold" but
landed on America, mistook the people as "Indians" and from that the name "Red
Indians" came.
No one here is able to understand the fact that when a "democratic country"is
being surrounded by all non democratic/Communist countries, how much pressure
they have toface and inspite of all India is a democratic country till its
inception. But this is not true for US.
No one here try to give me an answer whether there's terrorist prior to
September 11?
I respect US for the May 1st movement, i respect US for the statue of liberty
and the US constituition but I wonder how and why a democratic nation never
support another democratic nation.
Both for UK and US, though they maintain their internal democracy but they
never respect it for other nations.And that makes the democratic loving people
annoyed. This may cause the rise of communism.Though communism is in its poor
state but if not start supporting other democratic nations, soon it will rise.
Already there was September 11 due to the supportive policy of US towards
terrorists and if this is going on for non democratic countries ( including
PRC) days may not be far off to face severe consequences than that of
September 11
If I shows any dis respect to the people of US or any other country in the
world, I am really sorry for that. I just wanted to keep the history and
geography alive.
Bye all, I will be away for a week. Please you all take care.
VIVA BBS
|
gull
|
|
response 249 of 360:
|
May 20 23:04 UTC 2002 |
Do you think sarkhel actually reads any of the responses in this item?
|