Print Page | Close Window

What follows what when implementing civilization?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: SCHOLARLY PURSUITS
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Description: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=128837
Printed Date: 15 Sep 2019 at 20:55
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: What follows what when implementing civilization?
Posted By: literaryClarity
Subject: What follows what when implementing civilization?
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2014 at 21:33
I think that in the four categories:

1) Cultural
2) Economics
3) Political
4) Military

They must necessarily be produced in this order to sustain the high quality of each other.  Let me show you where it has certainly succeeded in such order.

China and United States

China indeed started out with a massive ideation of high culture and though it was militarily weak during its response to events such as the Opium Wars one realizes the country and its people could never be won over.  On the other hand a place like Mongolia would be hard to militarily conquer but can be easily won over by the advent of culture, as history has shown it relished every culture other than its own.

While the United States imported much of its culture, it is still cultural nevertheless.  Instead of just one culture there is simply a great deal of culture going around.  We cannot deny its strength in the three other areas, which surpass even China's.

Now let's reverse the order:

1) Military
2) Political
3) Economics
4) Cultural

In this reversed order each and every category is almost guaranteed to fail.  Let me show you where it has certainly failed in this order.

North Korea, Nazi Germany and Axis

They started out with fierce iron will using military to suppress population for the development of political gain.  In the case of North Korea it has miserably failed to the point its military is in shambles.  At least with Nazi Germany there was a movement along with Mussolini's fascist Italy to begin a new kind of economic program of state capitalism which can be argued has spread amongst some of the more "socialist" European countries like Spain and France.  There was even a period of prosperity for the Nazi Germans and Soviet Russians as they maximized their reach using satellites.  The same can be argued for Japan.  The major flaw in their approach was that in the end nobody really gave a rats ass about their culture though they tried to impress it upon others through linguistic acculturation and through racial idealisms.  Needless to say they all fell apart.

Some approaches are akin to ice skating uphill and are the people who take them seriously become dumb losers of the world in time.

There are other variations on the order of implementation but none as worse as the one which completely defies logic.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm



Replies:
Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2014 at 06:15
i admit the meaning of all this does not seem clear to me at all.


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2014 at 07:36
People categorize things all the time.  For example China, many say it is a civilization state but for all intents and purposes, if we separate the civilizational components we would see that its strongest component is cultural in relation to other components in terms of its history.

As of these 4 categories you can basically categorize all the world civilizations since the beginning.  In addition to categorization it is noticeably apparent that some systems are implemented with the attention towards gain in all the categories at the same time but they didn't start out at the same time.

Strong culture leads to strong economics, strong economics leads to strong politics, strong politics leads to strong military in the sense that they are sustained within civilization when presented in this order and collapse when presented in the reverse.  I suppose one can even say the categorization pinpoints the specifics of how a culture was if it started out without military.  It would have been a culture of peace, not brutality.  On the other hand a civilization which began with military had a complete lack of culture, or if it had one a culture bereft of high culture and reasoning.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2014 at 16:15
What this is all about seems still a puzzle to me, but so far as I understand You I don´t think I can fully agree. I don´t see how nazis or the axis are any good example, because they did not "decay" or disappear by themselves, but were crushed. Military and the har way. And North Korea I think is not any result only of internal development and Korean culture, but rather something originally coming from abroad, from the USSR, Like the initial core of South Korea more or less was "Made in U.S.A.".


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2014 at 16:48
I was taking the third reich to conclusion.  Through militancy it enforced its ultimate goal of racial hierarchy with Germany's citizens being at the top.  This experienced an end.  Another good example of China.  Qin.  Lasted less than a generation.  Each dynasty failed which began with militancy but yet there is still a China, the China of cultural appreciation.

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2014 at 16:51
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

I admit the meaning of all this does not seem clear to me at all.
 
I join you in this. It all reads like nonsense to me.


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2014 at 17:04
lol the master trole with nothing substantial to offer but complain.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2014 at 18:24
fantasus wrote:
Quote What this is all about seems still a puzzle to me, but so far as I understand You I don´t think I can fully agree. I don´t see how nazis or the axis are any good example, because they did not "decay" or disappear by themselves, but were crushed. Military and the har way. And North Korea I think is not any result only of internal development and Korean culture, but rather something originally coming from abroad, from the USSR, Like the initial core of South Korea more or less was "Made in U.S.A.".
 
You're not alone on this, the OP doesn't make sense.


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2014 at 07:04
The Ottomans. I think, were from the start predominantly strong in a military sense, but made an empire lasting over centuries, eventually incorporating more sophisticated cultural, economic and political traits.


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2014 at 09:36
No more than the Roman Empire which ended on a similar sad note.  I really don't see how it can be any other way.  If you choose to start out in the military sense to build your civilization you will ultimately fail in all areas.  All empires in history have ended.  Even the most sophisticated most expansive world colonialist British Empire ended.  Now the economy in UK has seen some upstarts such as with the student riots.   Not to mention its politics went out the window and military. 

The UK is embroiled in a debate whether to allow multiculturalism to thrive or reaffirm a native cultural policy.  The Ottoman region has erupted into a contest of "holy war" of neighbor against neighbor still based on antiquity.  In contrast the east Asian region the culture is clearly Confucian and because this is clear there is no factor of "being perplexed".  The actors focus on economy rather than cultural principles.  As a result places like China and Japan have arisen to appeal to the political arena and both have United States backing although at different times.  Japan is backed militarily by its US ally while China is backed economically.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2014 at 02:14
So, the argument goes that there is only eternal civilizations or empires on the one hand and "failed" ones on the other. My reply will be something like this: Whatever humans achieved may eventually come to an end. Humanity, itself may at one time end. Is that "failure"?


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2014 at 08:50
When Nazi Germany and Axis existed were they the only ones on the planet?  Humanity takes its best examples to survive, its worst examples to fail.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2014 at 13:10
I have though all my life (a long life) what are those factors, and I came to a the conclusion that what drives a society is innovation. Basically, the way to solve better the problems of life, particularly in production of goods.
I think the basic power of a society is its innovative capability. And that shows in all your cathegories: economics (production of goods, for instance), politics (management of human resources), military (defense of our own territories and richness) and cultural (a side effect of a prosperous society). 
So the driving force behind everything is creativity.
That's why the U.S. dominates the world, not only because it has the best weapons, but above all it is because it has the best managers, inventors and creators, and also the best universities, broadway, hollywood and Silicon Valley


-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2014 at 14:04
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

So, the argument goes that there is only eternal civilizations or empires on the one hand and "failed" ones on the other. My reply will be something like this: Whatever humans achieved may eventually come to an end. Humanity, itself may at one time end. Is that "failure"?
 
1. Eternal civilisations are a myth. No civilisation, in it's purest form, lasts forever;
 
2. Everything comes to an end. It may be reinvented, modified, changed or whatever;
 
3. Humanity may come to an end, who knows?
 
4. Would it be a failure? Depends on how it comes to an end, if it ever does. 


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2014 at 14:39
I understand Pinquin's reasoning but the premise was skewed which hopefully resolves through discussion.  The reason there is a need for innovation of military is because there was something worth protecting, the culture.  Or put in another way a military is not given due cause to continue innovating if it had poor culture to protect.  Nobody would give a rats ass in the end.  You don't need an extremely innovated military to protect a place that is in constant cultural turmoil.  The people in those areas need to get their cultural act together first.  Notice when I use culture I don't mean just any culture like wine tasting and other random things.  I mean the culture that could be used to build off of because it has provided a scope for lasting cooperation.  You can't just step into some place with the best guns and decide hey the new culture of this place will be ours.  The thing about guns.  Nobody will listen to your culture because even if it had strong merits to begin with you overwrite its appeal with the imposition upon others which meant your culture was never really any good in the first place.  It continues in a viscious cycle until a point in time someone says lets take a look at the culture again.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2014 at 18:34
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I have though all my life (a long life) what are those factors, and I came to a the conclusion that what drives a society is innovation. Basically, the way to solve better the problems of life, particularly in production of goods.
I think the basic power of a society is its innovative capability. And that shows in all your cathegories: economics (production of goods, for instance), politics (management of human resources), military (defense of our own territories and richness) and cultural (a side effect of a prosperous society). 
So the driving force behind everything is creativity.
That's why the U.S. dominates the world, not only because it has the best weapons, but above all it is because it has the best managers, inventors and creators, and also the best universities, broadway, hollywood and Silicon Valley
Well, You still have a life and time to think, and since You seems to have found the question important, then also to modify Your thoughts, since it is not much of an explanation to give all credits to "creativity" (where does "creativity" comes from? Is it just a brute fact that some countries or cultures "harbour" more "creativity" than others, or is it not just that simple?)


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2014 at 21:28
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I have though all my life (a long life) what are those factors, and I came to a the conclusion that what drives a society is innovation. Basically, the way to solve better the problems of life, particularly in production of goods.
I think the basic power of a society is its innovative capability. And that shows in all your cathegories: economics (production of goods, for instance), politics (management of human resources), military (defense of our own territories and richness) and cultural (a side effect of a prosperous society). 
So the driving force behind everything is creativity.
That's why the U.S. dominates the world, not only because it has the best weapons, but above all it is because it has the best managers, inventors and creators, and also the best universities, broadway, hollywood and Silicon Valley
Well, You still have a life and time to think, and since You seems to have found the question important, then also to modify Your thoughts, since it is not much of an explanation to give all credits to "creativity" (where does "creativity" comes from? Is it just a brute fact that some countries or cultures "harbour" more "creativity" than others, or is it not just that simple?)
 
fantasus: Have you been on the red wine again?


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2014 at 00:59
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I have though all my life (a long life) what are those factors, and I came to a the conclusion that what drives a society is innovation. Basically, the way to solve better the problems of life, particularly in production of goods.
I think the basic power of a society is its innovative capability. And that shows in all your cathegories: economics (production of goods, for instance), politics (management of human resources), military (defense of our own territories and richness) and cultural (a side effect of a prosperous society). 
So the driving force behind everything is creativity.
That's why the U.S. dominates the world, not only because it has the best weapons, but above all it is because it has the best managers, inventors and creators, and also the best universities, broadway, hollywood and Silicon Valley
Well, You still have a life and time to think, and since You seems to have found the question important, then also to modify Your thoughts, since it is not much of an explanation to give all credits to "creativity" (where does "creativity" comes from? Is it just a brute fact that some countries or cultures "harbour" more "creativity" than others, or is it not just that simple?)
 
fantasus: Have you been on the red wine again?
Do You want to know?  I only want to express how the efforts of Pinguin impress me(all these years he have thought about that question!), though i am not sure I can say the same abouit his conclusions. From a rational point of view he could probably have left a lot of that thinking to others, concentrating his admirable efforts an energies on something else.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2014 at 03:30
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Well, You still have a life and time to think, and since You seems to have found the question important, then also to modify Your thoughts, since it is not much of an explanation to give all credits to "creativity" (where does "creativity" comes from? Is it just a brute fact that some countries or cultures "harbour" more "creativity" than others, or is it not just that simple?)

Creativity comes from human brains of people who has the time and resources to innovate. Creating the right environment for innovation is what most societies fail to achieve. For instance, I doubt that Newton had ever been a genius if he didn't met Cambridge. In fact, there he got into primitive Calculus thanks to his professor Isaac Barrow, the first to calculate a derivative and discoverer of the fundamental theorem of Calculus. So, in orden to develop genius and creativity yo need the environment.

Once you have innovation and creativity in a country, it certainly will compete better in ALL the fields: economics, science, arts and military as well. So, for me, obviously innovation is the engine that drives it all.




-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2014 at 03:41
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

...Do You want to know?  I only want to express how the efforts of Pinguin impress me(all these years he have thought about that question!), though i am not sure I can say the same abouit his conclusions. From a rational point of view he could probably have left a lot of that thinking to others, concentrating his admirable efforts an energies on something else.

Fantasus. I don't meditate on that topic to please you. 
My point is simple, and if you don't share the idea, good for you. In any case, if you are of those snobs that only respect authority, Arnold Toynbee proposed this idea long time before I was born. I quote him.

He is best known for his 12-volume  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Study_of_History" rel="nofollow - A Study of History  (1934–61), through which he

...examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history" rel="nofollow - human history , and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders



-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2014 at 06:16
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

  In any case, if you are of those snobs that only respect authority, Arnold Toynbee proposed this idea long time before I was born. I quote him.
No, I don´t "only" respect authority, and in many cases I will doubt "authorities". Even Toynbee, I guess.
It is more that I don´t find "creativity" or "innovation" to clarify things that much.
But since You mention Newton, I have just finished a book about him, unfortunately not in english, but a new one, stressing his occupation with religious and biblical and "historical" speculation, his interests in alchemy and whatever else he did. Not that he was unique, since other great scientists of that time, like Kepler, had peculiar interests in those fields. But back to topic: The question about "creativity" is, here I admit we agree, much a question of the right environment, since humans from earliest times may have had the potential, even sometimes as much as all we know of geniuses. A man we could compare(regarding potentrial ability, creative and intellectual potential) with Newton or any famous 20th century scientist could have lived in prehistoric times (I see no reason there did not live many with similar potential from birth), but would have used them in entirely different ways. So here it is that the "environment", including the "cultural" environment comes into the picture. And that rases new questions. Not least the question of wether or not we think we can dig deeper into "why" and "how" such a cultural environment may evolve. Of course that may result in a very long, even "infinite" discussion about cultures, about economy, mentality of peoples and about history. But such discussions can be very long and complex and risk ending up in "cirkular reasoning" and explanations that really don´t explain much. To make it short:that is some of the main reasons I prefer looking at the natural environmental forces, behind the "historical" or cultural, or even "genetic".


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2014 at 12:04
My feeling is that what matters in society are the development of the most important resource: human resources. 

-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2014 at 18:14
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

My feeling is that what matters in society are the development of the most important resource: human resources. 
"Human ressources" are not as I see it ressources in the same sense or on the same level as other types. Then, if the only factor was "humans", they are on a basic level, and from the beginning "the same" from a large scale point of view, and all differences on an individual level. So, if we look at differences between cultures, societies or humans in different areas, this so-called "human ressources" will not make things clear to us. If we look at individual histories though, I admit it is a different matter. But differences on a collective level between humans does not so much explain anything but rather need critical examination and explanation itself.


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2014 at 23:47
I think what Pinguin had said about innovation is true.  In many cases the environment of a failed state, empire, or civilization is due to the apparent lack of something as fundamental as innovation.  Without innovation there could not have been anything so revolutionary as to have moved civilization forward.  Military is an innovation of politics, politics is an innovation of economics, economics is an innovation of culture.  The next thing coming always serves the thing before it, not the other way around.  Culture does not serve economics, ecomonics does not serve politics, and politics certainly does not serve military.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 05:37
Is this why Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex?  In that setup the military doesn't really serve the politics anymore as the idea becomes about trying to get the other branches of government to perpetually serve the military.  Therefore sooner or later the politics becomes about maintaining the army's great strength and the economics becomes about funding the military.  It is a curious thing that even though the US has been accused of this kind of ponzi scheme it still has the focus of cultural freedom enough to attract immigrants from all over the world.  It is a constant struggle for politics to maintain between that of economic freedom and the danger that it could get out of hand without adequate policing but which require law enforcement and military projection.

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 07:59
The U.S. is strong because of its creativity, reflected in the best universities worldwide, Hollywood and Silicon Valley. When that part of U.S. economy fall down, if ever, the country will decline.
Notice that no competing power (Nazis, the Soviet Union and in recent times Europe, Japan and China) can compare to the U.S. in terms of creativity: nobel prize production, blockbuster movies, high tech inventions. While that remains the same, Uncle Sam will rule supreme.


-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 08:26
Hollywood is racist however.  There are numerous perpetuated racist themes coming from Hollywood in connection to US military. For example Transformers 2.  I felt sorry for the fictional depiction of robots trampling down on "terrorist" subjects in the first 5 minutes.  Apparently the creators were not creative enough even with hundreds of millions of dollars to help them.  This is nothing short of explicit propaganda in service of the US military.  They say the winners write the history books.  Is this what they mean by winning and history books?  Sure it is fictional but the utilization of the real world aspects is there.  That's not to say other countries don't do this also, have culture which is inspired off military gung ho.  Hopefully it isn't a trend which will last on and on.  Military should be military, it shouldn't be the subject of someone's culture unless you are the Samurai class.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 12:03
That's not the point. The fact the U.S. consider third world countries like its backyard doesn't diminish its strength and don't put in risk its hegemony.

-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 13:13
You are trying to change the subject.  The fact that US hegemony is entrusted to Hollywood is unimaginable.  Hollywood is about as uninnovative as it can get and doesn't reflect anything but slapstick and gung ho.  I've not seen a production worth the cost of the budget since the rise of the Wachowski bros if you know what I mean.  If Hollywood goes down the world would have more marketshare in other kinds of movies, not just racist movies.

On the other hand if you are talking about using someone's backyard China has this worked out like nobody has.  They literally strip mine a country's assets but pay handsomely with "rewards points" infrastructure and economic stimulus.  No debt.

Btw the hegemony of the US is challenged in the course of alternatives rising.  South America is for example already severed from the umbilical cord that is the US diplomatically led agenda.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 13:49
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The U.S. is strong because of its creativity, reflected in the best universities worldwide, Hollywood and Silicon Valley. When that part of U.S. economy fall down, if ever, the country will decline.
Notice that no competing power (Nazis, the Soviet Union and in recent times Europe, Japan and China) can compare to the U.S. in terms of creativity: nobel prize production, blockbuster movies, high tech inventions. While that remains the same, Uncle Sam will rule supreme.

Give me a break. Creativity does not follow national boundaries. The reason we have heard so much out of the US in recent decades is because so many other nations have been blighted by horrendous governance, or political or environmental upheaval, or war, and so the most able flee to the bright lights.

Einstein was a German Jew forced out of his country. The atom bomb project was run by a consortium of European physicists. Nasa was overseen by a German. Hollywood was the only show in town for a long while, but is now being made to look ridiculous by amateurs using internet technology. China is now a leading producer of alternative energy products. Some of the best ideas in urban design and livability come from Europe, and most definitely not the US in this area. Brazil builds aircraft, and Russia shuttles crew to the international space station.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 14:27
The whole topic is nonsense.

Civilisation is not implemented, it evolves as people discover new and better ways to do things, to read and write, to record their history and laws.

No-one snaps his fingers and says "Let's have a civilisation here."

All of the points listed in the OP are aspects of civilisation many of which are shaped by trial and error, some by outside influences such as neighbouring cultures.

To select one or two ancient civilisations and cherry pick some of their achievements is disingenuous in the extreme, and has no influence, probably, on civilisation in general.

Civilisation is a process, not an overnight discovery.

-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 15:07
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


Give me a break. Creativity does not follow national boundaries. The reason we have heard so much out of the US in recent decades is because so many other nations have been blighted by horrendous governance, or political or environmental upheaval, or war, and so the most able flee to the bright lights.

Einstein was a German Jew forced out of his country. The atom bomb project was run by a consortium of European physicists. Nasa was overseen by a German. Hollywood was the only show in town for a long while, but is now being made to look ridiculous by amateurs using internet technology. China is now a leading producer of alternative energy products. Some of the best ideas in urban design and livability come from Europe, and most definitely not the US in this area. Brazil builds aircraft, and Russia shuttles crew to the international space station.


Actually, you contradicted yourself. You said "the most able flee to the bright lights". The U.S. is brighter than the rest of countries and attracts intellectuals like flowers attract bees! That country promotes innovation like no other.

I will give you an example from my own country. Do you remember the TV series "I Dream of Jeannie". One of the directors of that series was Claudio Guzman. Who was Claudio Guzman? Well, he was a Chilean that succeed directing an American TV series at a time there were few TV set in Chile, and our own country lacked the resources to record even a soap opera!!! (they were transmitted alive at the time). So, the important thing was not that Guzman was Chilean. What matter is that the U.S. has the resources and potential to develop to the top any skilled man coming from the other end of the world. And yes, Einstein was pretty smart, but the U.S. developed the atomic bomb, and Von Braun was smart too, but it wasn't his loved Nazi Germany but the U.S. which fulfilled his dreams.








-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 15:12
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:


Btw the hegemony of the US is challenged in the course of alternatives rising.  South America is for example already severed from the umbilical cord that is the US diplomatically led agenda.


Latin America don't trust the U.S. It never had and it'll never do. The reason is simple. The U.S. had invaded and intervened in local politics too many times, and Latin Americans are people with good memory.

On the other hand, the U.S. is one of our economic models to follow. And I can't deny many local people admire the creativity of that country.


-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 17:15
Who wound up the Pinguin?

-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2014 at 17:50
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The whole topic is nonsense.

Civilisation is not implemented, it evolves as people discover new and better ways to do things, to read and write, to record their history and laws.

No-one snaps his fingers and says "Let's have a civilisation here."

All of the points listed in the OP are aspects of civilisation many of which are shaped by trial and error, some by outside influences such as neighbouring cultures.

To select one or two ancient civilisations and cherry pick some of their achievements is disingenuous in the extreme, and has no influence, probably, on civilisation in general.

Civilisation is a process, not an overnight discovery.


Wrong civilization is a reality that is here and now and its implementation can be understood through the social political economic sciences.  You can think of it as a science for the successful sustainability of large dense urban populated areas.

This topic is like the "Doubts about Evolution" one.  It's not that evolution is nonsense but the preconceptions that are stuck in our heads sometimes need reevaluation so that the concepts are intimately understood.  So too with civilization.  You are right that it is a process of trial and error, similar to evolution.  However there is a sustainable direction to it which I find fascinating to discuss.  Were it not for direction I doubt much people would like civilization at all and this is certainly reflected in parts of the world where civilization is disintegrating rather than upholding a continuous process.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2014 at 02:06
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


Give me a break. Creativity does not follow national boundaries. The reason we have heard so much out of the US in recent decades is because so many other nations have been blighted by horrendous governance, or political or environmental upheaval, or war, and so the most able flee to the bright lights.

Einstein was a German Jew forced out of his country. The atom bomb project was run by a consortium of European physicists. Nasa was overseen by a German. Hollywood was the only show in town for a long while, but is now being made to look ridiculous by amateurs using internet technology. China is now a leading producer of alternative energy products. Some of the best ideas in urban design and livability come from Europe, and most definitely not the US in this area. Brazil builds aircraft, and Russia shuttles crew to the international space station.


Actually, you contradicted yourself. You said "the most able flee to the bright lights". The U.S. is brighter than the rest of countries and attracts intellectuals like flowers attract bees! That country promotes innovation like no other.

I will give you an example from my own country. Do you remember the TV series "I Dream of Jeannie". One of the directors of that series was Claudio Guzman. Who was Claudio Guzman? Well, he was a Chilean that succeed directing an American TV series at a time there were few TV set in Chile, and our own country lacked the resources to record even a soap opera!!! (they were transmitted alive at the time). So, the important thing was not that Guzman was Chilean. What matter is that the U.S. has the resources and potential to develop to the top any skilled man coming from the other end of the world. And yes, Einstein was pretty smart, but the U.S. developed the atomic bomb, and Von Braun was smart too, but it wasn't his loved Nazi Germany but the U.S. which fulfilled his dreams.







If you imagine that "I Dream of Jeannie" represents creativity, then I'm sorry to break this to you penguin, but  your only hope is to attend a re-education camp for philistines, and don't spare the pesos.

My point was that creativity is not the sole possession of any one country, as there are creative people disbursed around the planet. It's just the US was the place to be for a while, just as Paris was in the 1920's, or London before that, etc. Today, education, technology, and development are becoming more widely distributed, and so we will see (and are seeing) more creative endeavor around the world.


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2014 at 04:29
The idea of a country having anything like "monopoly" of creativity seems simply based upon ignorance of creative achievements of other countries.


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2014 at 04:58
Culture is the permanently registered affect of creativity and economics is the behavioral outcome of culture and so on and so on.  Which part of the world doesn't have culture?  The problem is not to just have culture but to really bring it out into the open and sustain its growth economically.  The US does indeed have this phenonenon although I just wouldn't pin it down to Hollywood.  It's the cultural-economics of media sharing and "new sensation" in which the broadcasting conglomerates make a killing.  But the rich US culture of commercialized mainstream music is still derivative off street music which develops off little kids at home playing on their instrument of choice and sucking at it, at least in the beginning.  The US is a place full of humble amateurs but which inevitably gives rise to those with great talent due to the implementation of civilization.

By the way I think the show I dream of Jeannie is a pretty creative show but is sort of in line with the likes of Sabrina the Teenage Witch.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2014 at 05:53
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


If you imagine that "I Dream of Jeannie" represents creativity, then I'm sorry to break this to you penguin, but  your only hope is to attend a re-education camp for philistines, and don't spare the pesos.


Well, if you downplay Guzman's works in "I dream of Jeannie", perhaps you have known about Jodorowsky, Neruda or Isabel Allende, all Chileans. Anyways, don't look down on Latin Americans that we also have our own people to be proud of. The U.S. and Canada aren't the only civilized countries of the Americas, OK?

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


My point was that creativity is not the sole possession of any one country, as there are creative people disbursed around the planet. It's just the US was the place to be for a while, just as Paris was in the 1920's, or London before that, etc. Today, education, technology, and development are becoming more widely distributed, and so we will see (and are seeing) more creative endeavor around the world.


Sure I can agree with that. For instance, many Roman intellectuals weren't even born in Rome. But today, the hub of science, technology, arts and music is still the United States, and it will be that way for at least a century more.





-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2014 at 07:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 

Sure I can agree with that. For instance, many Roman intellectuals weren't even born in Rome. But today, the hub of science, technology, arts and music is still the United States, and it will be that way for at least a century more.



We should not assume that every contemporary achievement of today is from U.S of A. I suspect many peoiple do just that, and often fail to see things and ideas coming from elsewhere.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2014 at 08:19
Certainly. It is the same that in times of Rome, where provinces and even territories outside roman domain made some contributions as well, but in lower scale.  But still the hub of modern science, technology, military power and pop culture in the U.S.A.


-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2014 at 08:42
Notice however you said pop culture.  High culture however you refer to Rome.  These are all different cultures and which get moved around and shifted with the coming and going of people.  The culture of moving people around, tourism, Pax Romana Mongolica Sinica what have you is yet another kind of culture.  Which culture is supreme?

-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2014 at 10:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


If you imagine that "I Dream of Jeannie" represents creativity, then I'm sorry to break this to you penguin, but  your only hope is to attend a re-education camp for philistines, and don't spare the pesos.


Well, if you downplay Guzman's works in "I dream of Jeannie", perhaps you have known about Jodorowsky, Neruda or Isabel Allende, all Chileans. Anyways, don't look down on Latin Americans that we also have our own people to be proud of. The U.S. and Canada aren't the only civilized countries of the Americas, OK?

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


My point was that creativity is not the sole possession of any one country, as there are creative people disbursed around the planet. It's just the US was the place to be for a while, just as Paris was in the 1920's, or London before that, etc. Today, education, technology, and development are becoming more widely distributed, and so we will see (and are seeing) more creative endeavor around the world.


Sure I can agree with that. For instance, many Roman intellectuals weren't even born in Rome. But today, the hub of science, technology, arts and music is still the United States, and it will be that way for at least a century more.


A century is pretty extreme. There's plenty of science and technology going on in other parts of the world. Airbus is challenging Boeing, Samsung is taking on Apple, etc. US television and film tends towards the schmaltzy and the teen market, whereas Europe has- and is- producing some quality work. I don't quite get your reverence for the US in this regard.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2014 at 11:44
I don't love the U.S. as you very well know. But I admire its capacity to lead the world. No matter all the imperfections in government and international policies, the U.S. people has the skills to improve and surpass the rest. Remember all the powers the U.S. has beaten since the end of the 19th century: the Spanish Empire, the German, the Japanese, Europe (which after WWII got converted into a satellite of them), the Soviet Union, the Japanese once again in science and technology (1990s), the Muslim extremists. And it is still in good shape to continue for a century more.
On the achievements side, we shouldn't forget the U.S. is the single country that has reached the Moon.
On the military field, the U.S. has the largest and more powerful army of all.
On the cultural field, the U.S. dominates the media worldwide.
On the technology field, the U.S. has developed most of the technologies the world uses today, from computers to cell phones and Internet. 
On universities, the Americans are the most prestigious worldwide, and the ones that have most of Nobel prizes winners.
Indeed, no matter I don't like the Uncle Sam's Empire I admire the creativity of American people.








-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2014 at 17:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I don't love the U.S. as you very well know. But I admire its capacity to lead the world. No matter all the imperfections in government and international policies, the U.S. people has the skills to improve and surpass the rest. Remember all the powers the U.S. has beaten since the end of the 19th century: the Spanish Empire, the German, the Japanese, Europe (which after WWII got converted into a satellite of them), the Soviet Union, the Japanese once again in science and technology (1990s), the Muslim extremists. And it is still in good shape to continue for a century more.
On the achievements side, we shouldn't forget the U.S. is the single country that has reached the Moon.
On the military field, the U.S. has the largest and more powerful army of all.
On the cultural field, the U.S. dominates the media worldwide.
On the technology field, the U.S. has developed most of the technologies the world uses today, from computers to cell phones and Internet. 
On universities, the Americans are the most prestigious worldwide, and the ones that have most of Nobel prizes winners.
Indeed, no matter I don't like the Uncle Sam's Empire I admire the creativity of American people.

This is "half the truth" at best. "Europe" did not became US "stallelite" after 1945. At most part of it became US dependent, and I don´t know the meaning of saying it "beat Europe" since there was no such political entity. Germany was beaten twice, but then the US was far from alone and in facgt other powers contributed substantially and fought longer (Britain, France, Italy and Russia in WW1, and the same powers except Italy in ww2 plus minor powers). The Soviet block very much ended from internal reasons. Then also already before those great wars the US had a much bigger territory and natural ressources, plus population and industrial capacity than any of its opponents, and most of its allies.
 In many technological fields many pioneers came from outside US, but I admit it attrackts a part of them, so scientists, inventtors etcetera from elsewhere eventually become US residents. Such immigrants laid the foundation for very much of the dominance.


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2014 at 17:56
And US media and entertainment industry (Hollywood as an example)probably has excaggerated the US "all dominance" in many respects.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2014 at 03:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I don't love the U.S. as you very well know. But I admire its capacity to lead the world. No matter all the imperfections in government and international policies, the U.S. people has the skills to improve and surpass the rest. Remember all the powers the U.S. has beaten since the end of the 19th century: the Spanish Empire, the German, the Japanese, Europe (which after WWII got converted into a satellite of them), the Soviet Union, the Japanese once again in science a,nd technology (1990s), the Muslim extremists. And it is still in good shape to continue for a century more.

Whoa there penguin, let's stop flapping those wings and do a modest review of history.

1) The US took on Spain at the end of the 19th century, because it coveted certain colonial possessions. Spain was an ideal target, as it had been in long decline, and was no match for what was an economy just then surpassing Britain, the superpower of the time.
2) The US took on Germany in 1917, a nation starving and in deep trouble, with the backing of the British and French empires.
3) Although playing a key part in WW2, The US could not have prevailed if not working in concert with the Soviet Union, the British Commonwealth, and other countries. Their fortunate position in that conflict was in no small measure the fact of two huge oceans that, given the technology of the time, insulated them from harm, and allowed production to blossom unhindered.
4) Europe did not become a satellite of the US, but joined together in the NATO alliance, one critical for the both the US and Europe.
5) Japanese (and Korean, and other) technology reigns supreme around the world. Samsung can offer an equivalent tablet computer cheaper than Apple. The car I drive is Japanese design (but made by low wage, non-union labour in the southern US). The world's largest civil aircraft is European design....
6) Yes, the US pulled ahead of the old Soviet Union. Your victory dance may be tempered by facts such as astronauts still depend on a lift from Russian technology to get to the international space station.
7) Muslim extremists are still a work in progress. 


Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


On the achievements side, we shouldn't forget the U.S. is the single country that has reached the Moon.
On the military field, the U.S. has the largest and more powerful army of all.
On the cultural field, the U.S. dominates the media worldwide.
On the technology field, the U.S. has developed most of the technologies the world uses today, from computers to cell phones and Internet. 
On universities, the Americans are the most prestigious worldwide, and the ones that have most of Nobel prizes winners.
Indeed, no matter I don't like the Uncle Sam's Empire I admire the creativity of American people.


Come clean with us penguin. You've been up late at night watching old John Wayne movies haven't you?

The US has the world's largest economy, the third largest population, and as mentioned, has escaped the destruction of war in the 20th century due to geography. Given these advantages, it would be surprising if the US didn't have some good achievements under its belt.

Good on 'em for what they have done on the plus side. But let's not assemble a virtual shrine here. That would be so Hollywood.


Posted By: literaryClarity
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2014 at 07:17
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

And US media and entertainment industry (Hollywood as an example)probably has excaggerated the US "all dominance" in many respects.


Agreed.  It is certainly funny though to look back on how many summer blockbusters were sold on the revisioning of recent/ancient history and the US's role within the backdrop of its international politics.  #X-Men #Transformers #PrettyMuchEveryFormulaicHeroMovie

Come to think of it.  It is amazing that it receives viewership by idiots outside the US.


-------------
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2014 at 14:06
The really unfortunate fact is that so many young people, Americans included, believe that what they see in movies or TV programs must be fact.

This is particularly true of historical representations, and leads to a completely wrong view of history, in the case of American programs, with the USA at the foremost, which of course is inaccurate.

-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2014 at 12:18
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


Come clean with us penguin. You've been up late at night watching old John Wayne movies haven't you?


How do you guess? LOL


Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

The US has the world's largest economy, the third largest population, and as mentioned, has escaped the destruction of war in the 20th century due to geography. Given these advantages, it would be surprising if the US didn't have some good achievements under its belt.

Good on 'em for what they have done on the plus side. But let's not assemble a virtual shrine here. That would be so Hollywood.


Listen. I don't love the U.S. In fact, we used to be the playground of American military power up to the time the U.S. got in trouble with Oil and Islam. Remember that even my country suffered and American driven coup.

However, I must recognize I admire the American system to create knowledge. By comparison, Europe is a backwater, and Asia only manufactures but don't produce the revolutionary inventions. For instance, Elon Musk decided to move to the U.S. and not to Japan or Europe, because he knew only in the U.S. his ideas could flourish, and they did.

God keep America... And Keep U.S. Arm Forces fooling around very far away from South America LOL





-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2014 at 12:21
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:


Agreed.  It is certainly funny though to look back on how many summer blockbusters were sold on the revisioning of recent/ancient history and the US's role within the backdrop of its international politics.  #X-Men #Transformers #PrettyMuchEveryFormulaicHeroMovie

Come to think of it.  It is amazing that it receives viewership by idiots outside the US.


At least in Latin America, we know the U.S. lies as a matter of fact. We know what Yankees have done to the world, particularly to the Third World. For instance, how to cry for the Americans soldiers that died in Vietnam, when we know 2 million of Vietnamese died in that war as well. And we know the orange agent is still producing monsters among the newborn in Vietnam. God Bless America with the power of seen its own crimes.


-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2014 at 13:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:



Agreed.  It is certainly funny though to look back on how many summer blockbusters were sold on the revisioning of recent/ancient history and the US's role within the backdrop of its international politics.  #X-Men #Transformers #PrettyMuchEveryFormulaicHeroMovie

Come to think of it.  It is amazing that it receives viewership by idiots outside the US.



At least in Latin America, we know the U.S. lies as a matter of fact. We know what Yankees have done to the world, particularly to the Third World. For instance, how to cry for the Americans soldiers that died in Vietnam, when we know 2 million of Vietnamese died in that war as well. And we know the orange agent is still producing monsters among the newborn in Vietnam. God Bless America with the power of seen its own crimes.


I think we've strayed from the paths of righteousness here.

Surely you aren't saying that the USA is civilised?

-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2014 at 12:06
Ha ha ha. Of course not. The U.S. is a powerful country that imposes its will, technology and culture all over the world. It behaves relatively well inside its own land with its own citizens, but don't care much about the way it dominates the rest of the world.


-------------
A point of view from the antipodes


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Oct 2014 at 12:15
Wrong post.


-------------
A point of view from the antipodes



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net