4 ms·

" So like the Turks, the Americans are not important because of who they are, but because of where they live." To make a sweeping generalization like that in t

by crusso 14y ago

" So like the Turks, the Americans are not important because of who they are, but because of where they live." To make a sweeping generalization like that in the article, you'd have to ignore the timeline of the founding of America and the massive influx of people who wanted to be here before anyone even knew about our great resources or how to use them in a modern sense. America was recognized all around the world at the time of its founding (and a bit before, even) because it was a grand experiment in personal liberty under the rule of law. The resources were a nice bonus, I think, but then again there have been many counter examples where countries/societies have had tremendous resources and failed to rise because of it (oil in the Middle East), or had very little resources and dominated the economic or geopolitical landscape at one time or another (Japan, Hong Kong, Great Britain, etc.) If anything, there is a lot of evidence that resources are actually not helpful or even counter-productive to progress in a society http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil-wealth.html http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2009/02/zakaria-on-curse-of-oil.... Look at the historical dominance of societies that were farther away from the equator vs the most lush areas of the world closer toward it. The necessary traits for survival when you have a winter (planning for a shortage of crops, living in close quarters with others by following rules, reduced tolerance for corruption) combined with the unique (at the time) notion that individual liberty and free enterprise trumped the tyranny of a central government played a far greater role in the importance of America than acreage of contiguous croplands. Fear not, those of you who think that America's success was all resources and geography, not discipline and philosophy... America is being brought low quickly enough. As we've pretty much thrown away most of the restraints on the Federal Government spelled out in the Constitution, America will be the next century's counter-example of a nation with great resources but little importance on the geopolitical stage as we destroy Liberty and the Free Enterprise system that was the true engine that originally brought America to power.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vorg 14y ago
> America was recognized all around the world at the time of its founding (and a bit before, even) because it was a grand experiment in personal liberty under the rule of law. The resources were a nice bonus, I think, but then again there have been many counter examples where countries/societies have had tremendous resources and failed to rise because of it The article specifically mentions the Mississippi River, and compares the cost of transport by sea, road, and rail. Control of waterways has always been key to great power status. Controlling the world's oceans, especially chokepoints like Panama, Singapore, and Hormuz, lets the US project maritime power. Controlling the Altantic slave trade gave England, France, and Spain the upper hand at various times, and big wars were fought for the prize. Joining the Yellow and Yangtze rivers into one via the Grand Canal around 600ad by the Sui/Tang dynastry is what propelled China to become the world's greatest power for a thousand years. The Romans took over the entire Mediterranean, settling the entire coastline, after smashing Hannibal. And of course, control of the Nile, Euphrates/Tigris, Indus, and Yellow river basins is what made agriculture viable in the first place. It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about liberty. An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black 50 yrs ago won't understand any of the "liberty" and "rule of law" there's been.
- crusso 14y ago
  > It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about liberty. The funny thing is that you even quoted the part of my post that shows that what you're saying isn't supported by the facts of the timeline according to a written historical record. The first settlers who left Europe mostly left for Liberty -- religious and otherwise. These were people concerned about Liberty before there even were colonies. There was no great farmland available. There was no Mississippi. There weren't even any slaves to leverage as resources. Yet, if you read the historical records, those early settlers wanted mostly to get away from the oppressive States of Europe. Freedom was their issue and it was tightly ingrained in the American culture from the beginning. Fast-forward to the American Revolution (all about Liberty, read the writings of the Revolutionaries), and you'll see that these people were fanatics about restraining the central government long before it even had any interest in anything outside of the 13 colonies. > An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black 50 yrs ago won't understand any of the "liberty" and "rule of law" there's been. Slavery was horrible and really the poison that was allowed into the US founding that led to the destruction of the notion of States' Rights when we fought over the issue during the Civil War. That original sin has pretty much cost us our Liberty, since after the Federal government forced its supremacy it broke the ability of States to protect themselves. It shifted the American power structure from being bottom-up to top-down. Amerindians were killing and DISPLACING each other over primitive tribal issues long before we arrived. Unfortunately for them, the European technological advantage was so great. That said, I like to think that we've learned a lot as a society as we proved after World War I and beyond where we never tried to keep by force any land where we fought battles for some cause. You bring up an unintentionally interesting point: If American resources and geography were such a societal advantage, then why isn't the Amerindian culture the most dominant in the world now? They had numbers, access to the same resources, geographic isolation to protect them from other countries for centuries, etc. But they never progressed and became "important" as a society. Even after Europeans showed up and allowed them access to our technology, they used some of it pragmatically (horses and guns), but they never embraced the cultural underpinnings that would have allowed them to challenge us.
  - vorg 14y ago

by crusso 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

vorg 14y ago

> America was recognized all around the world at the time of its founding (and a bit before, even) because it was a grand experiment in personal liberty under the rule of law. The resources were a nice bonus, I think, but then again there have been many counter examples where countries/societies have had tremendous resources and failed to rise because of it The article specifically mentions the Mississippi River, and compares the cost of transport by sea, road, and rail. Control of waterways has always been key to great power status. Controlling the world's oceans, especially chokepoints like Panama, Singapore, and Hormuz, lets the US project maritime power. Controlling the Altantic slave trade gave England, France, and Spain the upper hand at various times, and big wars were fought for the prize. Joining the Yellow and Yangtze rivers into one via the Grand Canal around 600ad by the Sui/Tang dynastry is what propelled China to become the world's greatest power for a thousand years. The Romans took over the entire Mediterranean, settling the entire coastline, after smashing Hannibal. And of course, control of the Nile, Euphrates/Tigris, Indus, and Yellow river basins is what made agriculture viable in the first place. It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about liberty. An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black 50 yrs ago won't understand any of the "liberty" and "rule of law" there's been.

crusso 14y ago
> It was the abundant crops that allowed some Americans to think about liberty. The funny thing is that you even quoted the part of my post that shows that what you're saying isn't supported by the facts of the timeline according to a written historical record. The first settlers who left Europe mostly left for Liberty -- religious and otherwise. These were people concerned about Liberty before there even were colonies. There was no great farmland available. There was no Mississippi. There weren't even any slaves to leverage as resources. Yet, if you read the historical records, those early settlers wanted mostly to get away from the oppressive States of Europe. Freedom was their issue and it was tightly ingrained in the American culture from the beginning. Fast-forward to the American Revolution (all about Liberty, read the writings of the Revolutionaries), and you'll see that these people were fanatics about restraining the central government long before it even had any interest in anything outside of the 13 colonies. > An Amerindian displaced from the Mississippi 200 yrs ago or a homeless Black 50 yrs ago won't understand any of the "liberty" and "rule of law" there's been. Slavery was horrible and really the poison that was allowed into the US founding that led to the destruction of the notion of States' Rights when we fought over the issue during the Civil War. That original sin has pretty much cost us our Liberty, since after the Federal government forced its supremacy it broke the ability of States to protect themselves. It shifted the American power structure from being bottom-up to top-down. Amerindians were killing and DISPLACING each other over primitive tribal issues long before we arrived. Unfortunately for them, the European technological advantage was so great. That said, I like to think that we've learned a lot as a society as we proved after World War I and beyond where we never tried to keep by force any land where we fought battles for some cause. You bring up an unintentionally interesting point: If American resources and geography were such a societal advantage, then why isn't the Amerindian culture the most dominant in the world now? They had numbers, access to the same resources, geographic isolation to protect them from other countries for centuries, etc. But they never progressed and became "important" as a society. Even after Europeans showed up and allowed them access to our technology, they used some of it pragmatically (horses and guns), but they never embraced the cultural underpinnings that would have allowed them to challenge us.
- vorg 14y ago