user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Why does one have to be better, some have been great some think they are there are and have been both good and bad points in any country.
There is no "greatest".
good point. where do you hail from colin?
from the UK Kev but now I am in Perth, West Australia. Isnt it sad
that so few think globally.
very sad. there are no great nations, only great men (and women). most great inventors and explorers want their inventions and discoveries to be for the world. it is only when governments get involved that great advances, discoveries and inventions get national identities.
I voted the USA. I was going to vote Britain, seeing as we invented freedom and democracy, started the industrial revolution and founded America etc..
But civilisation is influenced by many different sources around the world.
Frankly, seeing as civilisation is driven by a few people of genius and not peoples I don't see why every country in the world decides to become a libertarian meritocracy. The USA is close enough though.
Britain and the US are both equally the best, at least in my opinion. The US and Britain should be one unified country anyway. How very cool would that be!
that OK then Patch ...lol just throw away that silly declaration of independence and off we will go.. * rolls about guffawing,then hides from the inevitable firestorm on the horizon*
lets see america modern america a country "started by killing all the people living there"a country built on the back of slavery" a country killing innocent people by the thousand".
depends on your definition of great
Greater than the rest but there's a lot of room for improvement.
lets see america modern america a country "started by killing all the people living there"a country built on the back of slavery" a country killing innocent people by the thousand".
depends on your definition of great
by Mikhail on Jul 12, 2005
not this crap again. yeah, and what major power does not have a history like that? the british empire did the same thing. do you know who brought the slaves to america? europeans. people seem to forget that the dutch were briging slaves from africa in the 1700's.
are you going to tell me that russia has a more pure history? sure, if you just want to forget that stalin killed over 20 million of his own people in purges.
we are at a very dangerous time here. this need to rewrite history to make america look bad is outrageous. in doing so, what you are in essence doing is glossing over the barbaric history of many, many nations. are you okay with that?
this is what america meands by anti-americanism and how tired we are of it. people like you are so filled with jealousy and hate that you conveniently ignore the agressive history of almost every major power that was and is. this is why we tend to lash back at you. we here in the usa learn all the history of our country -- good and bad. i don't know about you, but i prefer to know the truth. perhaps mikhail, you prefer to believe what is most convenient for you. i suggest you invest in a world history book -- an accurate one.
Well, when you guys are going to have half of the russian litearature, or half of the german philosophy or music, or half of the french poetry, or half of the italian art, or half of the british empire, you can count on my vote. 'Till then, no!
and just to clear this up mikhail -- research on how arab slave traders, working for and with the british and the dutch, were taking innocent people from afria and enslaving them long before we were even formed as a nation.
you might also want to look at the british's history in india and indeed, almost all of their empire. need we mention what germany did to 6 million innocent jews? what about the soviet union and their invasion of almost all of eastern europe!! oh, yeah, that's right, it was in the past. so was slavery in this country!
guys like you just don't get it. its why i never respect opinions or views of revisionists. while europeans act morally superior, it was not too long ago that a european country began an ethnic cleansing campaign agaist muslims. i see that slobodan milosovic is still on trial, right? how long will his trial las?? talk to us when you want to discuss historical facts and not infantile irrational rages.
^ johan, what on earth are you talking about??
^ yeah, okay. whatever. and we were prepared for assanine comments like mikhails. don't assume you know what anyone was going to write. and next time, be more clear with your posts. and europeans call us arrogant? dude, you guys need to take a chill, because in terms of arrogance, it was invented in europe and thrives there today.
Yeap, arrogance was invented by europeans. See how poor your civilisation is? :--)
I don't see what is so funny about that Upstanding. Why do guys like you have to be so rude and disrespectufl with your "lols, and lmfao, and "rolling aournd guffawing?" Its childish and rude. All you had to do was comment on why you feel differently than I do. Really.
The other thing about this ballot question is the comparison between the Roman empire and the Greek empire. Both were great, yet one was in a sense greater. It has been said that the Greeks were great thinkers and philosophers while the Romans were great doers. The Roman empire advanced faster and lasted longer because they actuall did (e.g. the Greeks would talk about how to build a bridge and debate how to build it...the Romans would actually build the bridge). I always found that comparison to be really interesting.
I really don't know where did you get the idea that I hate USA. The question is: IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE GREATEST COUNTRY OF ALL TIME?
Well my answer was NO. That doesn't mean I hate USA. As for being an arrogant european, once again where did you get this idea from? I come from a est-european country which had a rather small contribution to the culture of the world, so I don't have any reasons to be arrogant. What I wanted to say, in my immature way, is that a country's greatness is not measured in microchips and skyscrapers, but in its contribution to the advancement of the human spirit. And compared with those countries I listed in my previous post, USA is in inferiority in all aspects (maybe except Britaian; but Britain itself is a long way from being a great culture; Shakespeare is the only magnificent spirit of the british culture and one man, no matter how great he is, it's never enough to call a culture -GREAT).
Patch: that comparison between the romans and the greeks is very interesting, but not quite adequate. The romans were indeed great doers, but their actions were motivated by an imperialism that can find its recognition and justification only in a certain, rather tight, system of values. On the other hand greek culture is opened to universality. What makes a culture to be a culture is the ability to offer an universal answer to all the question human spirit can pose and a solution to all problems. A culture must be opened, not to external influences but in the sense that it must be able to outlast the nation that created her, it must find acceptance even between those who were born and raised in a different system of values. A culture resembles a philosophical system: no matter what is your question, even if your question was never before asked, it will find an answer in that system. Romans failed lamentably to build a culture. The very fact that they have assimilated everything they've encountered proves they have failed. Not being able to offer answers, they had to barrow the answers from those they've encountered. The greek culture survived to this day. The roman civilization lasted as long as their legions were strong. We can no longer find any trace of the roman spirit, if that ever truly existed. That's because the roman civilization was built on a primordial human impulse and so no justification was needed, no alternatives were ever searched. The greek culture (and all other cultures) was born from the amazement the man felt in front of the world. The roman empire was built because they felt they have to conquer the world. A culture is an explanation, not actions motivated by a feelings.
Johan I was not placing a political spin on it. I was stating what is generally agreed to as being an accurate assesment of the Roman empire vs. the Greek empire. My comment was not politically motivated and has nothing to do with politics or imperialims or anything like that. Don't confuse the governments of the Greek and Roman empires with the people. Generally, great advancements in science and technology and the arts are brought about by the people; just everyday, regular citizens. I see the point you are making, but in my opinion, it is the people that make a country/people great, not the governments. Lets leave politics aside for this debate. To say that Romans failed to build a culture by the way, is just wrong and how you can say that is beyond me. Unless of course you are making a political statement, which I think you are.
"Romans failed lamentably to build a culture. The very fact that they have assimilated everything they've encountered proves they have failed."
Haha, that's a good one Johan.
Sorry for the unintentional and unfortunate political parallel I've introduced in my text. I haven't use the word "imperialism" with a political sense, but with a "motivational" sense. I just wanted to say that the greatest accomplishment of the roman empire, their empire, was done with an irrational motivation, because imperialism is, in the end, irrational. Culture is an explanation, a mixture of reason and irrationality, but romans didn't seek any kind of explanations. When talking about culture, action is subsequent to contemplation. Culture is the result of man contemplating nature (both the "nature" of the universe and that of the man), it is the interpretation man gives to nature. And so action is the result of interpretation, it is the translation of culture in deeds. Roman civilization lacks the fine mixture between reason and irrational.
As for "Romans failed lamentably to build a culture.", I have only one question: except for their language and their law, what was it that was their own and they left behind?
Johan I think I understand what you are saying. It is not that I don't agree with you to a certain extent, because I do. The ballot question though is not solely about culture.
A societies/nations greatness is not defined by cultur alone. Culturally, meaning art, music and literature are vital, but they are only a component of the whole picture.
For example, you negate Britains' role and you assign Shakespeare as the one example. This is the point in which you and I diverge in our views.
I don't think you can diminish the role the Romans and the British played (play) in the world, just like you would be remiss to diminish America's contribution. Do I think there is any one "greatest" nation? Not really. To me, is the United States the best nation, yes, to me it is, good and bad points alike.
What makes a country great is it's innovation, its creativity and its inherent philosophies.
For example, a country might produce the most beautiful music the world has ever known, but if no one outside it's borders ever hears it because they do not "export" that music, is that country great? But, the country that seeks to explore and strives to sail around the whole world is just as great. If that country (e.g Rome, Britain or the USA) are the types of nations that not only innovate in science and technology and the arts, but also seek to spread that across the world for everyone's benefit and enjoyment, that makes that nation equally as great as the one that makes the most beautiful music.
I'm probably rambeling on here, so I'm sorry about that. I guess my point is if Country A comes up with a cure for a disease, but has not intentions or capability to share it with the world, but then Country B comes along and says "our ships are sailing the globe, get on board and we'll take this cure to all of the world." Which nation is greater, or are the equally great.
Did I make any sense? :) I have to go, but look forward to your thoughts.
LoL!!! There was a fire storm!
Our barbaric history?
It's over now and if you think freedom and democracy (which ended these atrocities, remember the civil war?) should be replaced by despotism, then you're no better than the slavers and pirates.
I'm right, I have rectiifed this situation with less effort and petty foibles than anyone else who tried.
The US can claim for great artistst in its short history than any other country produced in the same period. The US is all a continuation of the European cultures it is composed of. The legacy of Greece and Rome belongs to us all.
Patch: OK, let's take things one at a time:
- the greatness of a culture doesn't rely in its beauty alone (like you already said); it is universality that makes it great, the ability to offer universal values to people all over the world; if it does that it means that culture is both beautiful and viable and so is GREAT;
-the greatness of a nation doesn't rely in its culture alone (you also said it); but it somewaht of a rule that a great culture makes a great nation. Like I already said deeds are subsequent to culture, so if a nation creates a great culture great deeds come after naturaly; to talk about a nation greatness when that nation lacks a great culture, it's just like talking about the beauty of a man, who has no nose or no ears; that man can have somekind of beauty, just like a nation can have some kind of greatness without a truly great culture, but that man is not going to be BEAUTY itself, or that nation GREATNESS itself.
To take China or India for example, both nations created beautiful cultures that continue to amaze people today, but this two cultures reamained closed, in the sense that they were so linked with the people that created them, that it never "catch" to the rest of the world. Unlike them, the italian, french, german and russian cultures change the face of the world and continue to do that even today. This are the only four great cultures of the west and probably of the entire world.
You said: "What makes a country great is its innovation, its creativity and its inherent philosophies."
But it is the ability to inovate in the most profound ways, in all aspects of life, what makes a culture great. The simple fact of inovating, no matter how prolific, it's not enough. Sure, USA and Britain and Japan and a few other countries did "give" to the world and did change the world, but none of this nations radicaly changed the world in all its aspects. A culture is more than a way of life, it's a way of living.
PS: I'm glad you understud what I'm saying, 'cause at one point I thought I totaly lost everybody.
thc: it is not the number that counts. A culture it's a system that creates and it's created by its creation; somewhat of a viciouse circle: it is the perpetuum mobile of the civilisation. For the moment USA didn't "invent" a world of its own o world of values. USA borrowed allot and put something of its own, but the scale of the construction and its superficiality doesn't alow US to claim the title of "CULTURE". It doesn't mean that ain't going to happen in the future.
But it is the ability to inovate in the most profound ways, in all aspects of life, what makes a culture great. The simple fact of inovating, no matter how prolific, it's not enough. Sure, USA and Britain and Japan and a few other countries did "give" to the world and did change the world, but none of this nations radicaly changed the world in all its aspects. A culture is more than a way of life, it's a way of living.
PS: I'm glad you understud what I'm saying, 'cause at one point I thought I totaly lost everybody.
by johan_moritz on Jul 13, 2005
Hi Johan, well sorry to say, but you have lost me again. I totally disagree with you. To say that Britian and the United States did not significantly change or impact the world for the better makes no sense.
Really, you are diminishing our role and I don't know why, other than you have the need to. Space travel, radio, radar, Television, the advent of the internet, science and medical advances, you name it and both Britain and the USA have been major innovators. To try and take away from that makes no sense.
Sorry, Johan, but while I respect your right to feel that way, I question as to why you do. If you don't think the contributions we have made have had a major impact on the world, I have to wonder what history you have been taught. Forget about the "greatest" nation, because you seem fixated on trying to say the USA is NOT the greatest and as I've already told you, I do not think any one nation has been, is or will ever be the greatest.
I really feel that you are trying your best to knock Britain and the USA and in doing so, you come across as being biased.
In all honesty, you can have your views and that is that. I just don't happen to support them and question the motives behind your views. I think for the sake of mutual respect, it's best if I don't continue with this ballot. Thanks and again, no hard feelings on my part :)
The impact of the american technology in world is overwelming. The impact that the american spirit had on world is very small and has almost no originality. This is what I am saying! Not that you didn't change the world. It's just that you didn't do it on a scale other nations did. American civilisation ignored, so far, the human aspect, concentrating on science. You are a pragmatic nation and that's what keeping you from developing a complete personality. The american scientifical contribution is not a matter of discution, it can't be denied. But once again I have to ask: what is the contribution of USA regarding the human spirit? When we are talking about culture we are not only talking about buildings and machines, but first and formost about thoughts. So what are those original thoughts america created?
"Really, you are diminishing our role and I don't know why, other than you have the need to. Space travel, radio, radar, Television, the advent of the internet, science and medical advances, you name it and both Britain and the USA have been major innovators. To try and take away from that makes no sense."
I acknoledge all your creations, but only seeing your list of contributions is enough to make my point: WHERE ARE THE THOUGHTS?
Since it seems that I faild to tell you what a culture is, I will tell you what a culture feels like. You probably know my feelings about russians. I don't like them much (I keep to myself the harsh words I should use). And yet, I am a fanatic admiror of their culture. I can not even describe how russian culture changed my life. When I lost my faith, I've rediscovered it in the books of Dostoievsky. When I go to bed at night, I probably going to do it while listening a russian simphony. I can spend a whole day hating russians but only one quote from Dostoievsky, one poem of Pushkin, a single Shostakovich simphony and I am ready to forgive them anything. Do you think that 50 years from now, the world is going to forgive you something because you invented the internet or the satelites? A culture puts sense into the world. America put many things into the world, but you didn't put any sense. This is your failure, this is where others are better than you.
Since it seems that I faild to tell you what a culture is, I will tell you what a culture feels like.
America put many things into the world, but you didn't put any sense. This is your failure, this is where others are better than you.
by johan_moritz on Jul 13, 2005
Well I really do not need you to "tell" me anything, so you should know that I did not look to you for a definition. Secondly, your last comment supports my developing belief that for you, this was more about proving why America is "not." Rather than focusing on that, you would have had more credibility in my eyes if you had focused on giving reasons for your choice of the "greatest." Sorry, but my opinion is that this was your way of being critical of the United States and nothing more. You are of course entitled to your opinions, as am I, and mine are that you care more about diminishing America's image than you do about sharing your views on what makes a country great. As for me, and most Americans, we have been taught that all nations are worthy and have contributed in some way to the betterment of man kine. We have been taught that we can learn something from all cultures and that the world is a collective place that should foster innovation, creativity and inspiration. Bet you believe the opposite is true about us though, don't you. Lets just leave this issue where it is and agree that we have differing views and that I'm not going to change your mind and that you have not changed mine. Hope that is cool with you. Talk to you later! :)
Yes I did concetrated on what america is not. We all have a problem in realising what our contry "is not". I would've been ridiculos to tell you what america is, since you all know that better than me. If you take my statements as an insult, you're wrong. If you took them as an unbiased critique (spell?), than you are right. I did focused on USA, because the question of the ballot is about US. You shouldn't feel patronized becaused I put in my statements the definition of culture. Whe were talking about culture and yet it seems we talk about different things. That ain't my definition of culture, is the very definition of culture.
I didn't put any choise in here. I said the west and probably the world has 4 great cultures. And I stay by my statement. It is an unbiased statement. I didn't put any choice because that would've mean I have to choose between those 4 cultures; only in that moment my choise woul've been subjective.
As for all nations contributing to the world that's true.But all contributions are not the same. Some are bigger, more important. I don't really know your political afiliation, but I am no liberal. In fact exactly because liberalism puts an equality sign between all things, I am not a liberal. It is not political correct to discriminate (don't think about racism), but it is fair and true.
johan
You define culture differently, but I can extend you definition to say the Britain, France and Germany don't have any culture either because they borrowed HEAVILY from the cultures that came before them. Now any rational person would disagree with that and so should disagree with the assertion that America hasn't developed a culture yet. We may be close to the culture of Britain than the French are to the culture of the Franks but American culture has developed along different lines and brought aspects of different cultures together.
omfg i said dude...
***ing americans...
Well I will atack your statement from two points. :--) (don't take the word atack as an insult; I'm saying this because others did).
1. A culture is an ORIGINAL
Ups! Once again:
1. a culture is an ORIGINAL universe of values created by a people or a nation during its historical evolution. True, every culture is born on an already existent system of values, it would be absurd to say that a nation's culture starts from nothing. The for European nations that created the 4 great cultures of the world: Italy, France, Germany and Russia had as starting point the culture of ancient Greece. The first three come in contact with the Greek culture via the Roman empire; Russia, via the Byzantine empire (Russian culture has the lowest/smallest link with the culture of ancient Greece, but this is irrelevant for our discussion). The point is, even this cultures are descending from another culture, they've clearly surpassed it, creating NEW CULTURES- in other words: ORIGINAL CULTURES. Once again I say: originality is the sign of a culture. In a sense saying "original culture" is a mistake, a pleonasm how we say it in romanian (it means to use a word toghether with another word which alreeady emplies the sense of the first word; ex: killer weapon): a culture is either original or it ain't at all. You can't "claim" a culture as being your own, if it's not... yours. If Italy or France or Germany or Russia would've been satisfied with inheriting and preserving the Greek culture, then we wouldn't have spoke about the Italian, or French, or German, or Russian cultures, but about the Italian, French, German and Russian versions of the Greek culture. The bottom line is: those countries clearly surpassed their heritage. So far, US didn't surpassed it's British heritage, IMO I'd say it lost more than it put in place (but I admit, this is a rather subjective evaluation, so it's opened to debate). Another aspect is that US didn't even inherited a complete culture: British culture isn't a complete culture, so here is nr.
2. Every nation develops a system of values, that's a fact. Britain did that. But not every system of values, not every way of life is a culture. Every country has a way of understanding life, society, religion, politics. So every country has a "cultural configuration" (in the old days this was called a "second hand culture"; I really prefer the name cultural configuration since the other one sounds kind of insulting). But a culture is much more than that. A culture is exhaustive: a cultures includes every aspect of "being human", every imaginable and unimaginable aspect of live and universe. Like I already said, a culture is the answer to all questions a man can pose, it is a successful attempt to putt sense in the universe. A culture explores, in the most profound ways, all aspects of the spirit, of the rational and irrational. So far US didn't do that. Of course, you have great men of culture, but so far they've only explored some aspects from an unilateral point of view: that's because there weren't too many people to continue their work. A culture is a plead of great names. One or two names, not even a generation is not enough to create a culture: it takes a continuous effort to do that. And it takes the mirror of the world to validate a culture: Italy become a culture when "its" Renaissance become the Renaissance of the world; France wasn't a culture until its revolutionary ideals changed the world for ever; Germany wasn't a culture until the day that reinvented philosophy; Russia didn't become a culture until its literature spread hysteria through out the world.
1. Very subjective. I'm not sure that any culture has surpassed that of the Greeks and Romans. If I used your definition then there wouldn't be many cultures alive today, just unoriginal societies. And while America may not have yet surpassed the past achievements of our mother culture, American culture TODAY is more vibrant and powerful than contempory British culture.
2. Constitutional Democracy. There's a bit that can be said about this American contribution that goes beyond any scientific or technological contribution we have made to the world.
1. "If I used your definition then there wouldn't be many cultures alive today"
Yap! Actually there aren't too many cultures that deserve this name. BTW: that ain't MY definition; it's quite wide spread among those who deal with "Cultural theory". I don't invent this things, I've read them. As for those 4 surpassing their Greek heritage I think that's quite obvious.
"American culture TODAY is more vibrant and powerful than contempory British culture." You are probably right. It's quite easy to observe that US has a more dynamic social life and suffers allot more transformations than any European country at the moment. That's because you are a younger nation. Nations in Europe are about to die: EU is noting but a dinosaurs cemetery.
2. Constitutional democracy. Well, I can't argue with you about this. I just don't have enough knowledge to say if that's your original creation or is allot of french stuff in it... And its influence on the world its not that obvious. I mean, its true that there are allot of countries who have such a system, but in many cases this is not an American influence, but a point reached through their own strength,a result of their own historical evolution.
BUT!
After posting the previous comment I've started to think about some things. And I've been struck by an idea. Culture is the result of contemplation, a meaning of understanding the universe we live in. So far, this was the job of the spirit: art and philosophy. But our society has reached a high level of development, a level were understanding the universe is no longer a job for the philosophers, but for the scientists. Science is also the result of contemplation and a meaning of understanding the universe. So, maybe we live a time when the very understanding of word "culture" is about to change. The "definition" of culture I've used so far, is quite objective, but culture itself is a subjective phenomenon therefor dynamic, changeable. Maybe science is about to "take over" the world from the "spirit" and a new way of culture is about to appear: a culture in which science has the upper hand. If that's the case, I'd say US is about to create the culture of the future. But the implication of all this are so great, that I really think I should stop any kind of speculations, because that's beyond my power of understanding. So, shell we continue this discussion in, let's say, 50 years from now? :--)
what happenned to my other post, the post where i accidentally said dude...
I think Britain. No one in the world has achieved more than the Brits
^ how the hell do the Brits get away with everything without being called arrogant. I am tired of these cheap shots.
The US is the top country at the moment and the top country of the 20th century. If you are talking about of all time, you have to think chinese for good or bad. Just like the British Empire saw the US coming up. The US is seeing China coming. Plus China is doing something almost none of the great countries before has done. To rise again after falling. There are 1.3 billions of them out there too.
I think it's more pride than arrogance USRocks.
We , the British, invented Television!
|
|
