Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Pax Americana
I just finished reading Orson Scott Card's book Empire. It had some interesting bits comparing the U.S. to Rome. Specifically, there was a remark (that pretty much became the theme of the book) that the U.S. won't have the influence of Rome until it outgrows it's Republic phase and becomes a true Empire. I'm not sure where other empires like the U.K. would fit in such a model, but it mostly made for a decent book.
The only real problem I had was the dialogue. Card usually has pretty decent dialogue, but this book sounded like Robert Ludlum wrote all the dialogue. It was stiff and unnatural to say the least. The characters mostly talked to each other through "witty" one liners, kinda like the dialogue in "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country". One or two one-liners may be okay, but a conversation composed mainly of one-liners becomes tiresome very fast.
So, aside from that problem: Do you think the U.S. has or will have the influence of Rome?
The only real problem I had was the dialogue. Card usually has pretty decent dialogue, but this book sounded like Robert Ludlum wrote all the dialogue. It was stiff and unnatural to say the least. The characters mostly talked to each other through "witty" one liners, kinda like the dialogue in "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country". One or two one-liners may be okay, but a conversation composed mainly of one-liners becomes tiresome very fast.
So, aside from that problem: Do you think the U.S. has or will have the influence of Rome?
Comments
1) The U.S. is a megapower with more destructive force, economic strength, political pull, technological advancement, and social development than Rome could have ever dreamed.
2) The world is populated. It is explored. It is mapped. It is (to an arguable extent) civilized. There is no longer room for true Roman-style imperialism. It simply can't be done; with so many players on the board and entrenched, with the "size" of globe steadily shrinking into one ginormous community, no one player can hold as many chips at one time as Rome did, nor can one player expand its territory like Rome did.
For instance, if the U.S. suddenly went *poof*, the world economy would collapse because the biggest market would be gone. So would 80% of the world's food supply. So would the biggest military bastion against oppression. The U.N. would crumble, because we almost single-handedly finance it, supply it with peacekeeping forces, and referee it. World banking would be kaputz because we supply so many other companies with money (both under the table and above) and we also allow other nations to buy our debt from us and live off the interest. Our medical relief would immediately be gone, as would our tremendous technological infrastructure.
But would our ideals live on? I don't know. The rest of the world seems strangely disillusioned with the concept of freedom. A lot of thinkers in the U.S. are even scared of having too much freedom. Depending on the manner in which the U.S. suddenly vanished, I think we'd see a sudden backlash effect with other governments tightening their power structures to prevent following in our footsteps, and that would certainly lead to a more widespread totalitarian philosophy.
Or does the U.S. have too much of a problem trying to treat the world well? Maybe the U.S. should flex it's muscles more, slap the other kids around a little bit. Rome did, right?
(1) The lies. They weren't even good. At least you could kinda believe in Tonkin, and at least the domino theory made some sense.
(2) The whole idea of pre-emption. If the U.S. is a Republic, it shouldn't be in the business of pre-emption, If the U.S. is an Empire, pre-emption is fine. The contradiction makes me angry. I want to think I'm either in a Republic or an Empire, not some weird amalgam.
(3) I was too young for Vietnam and I'm too old for Iraq. How dare they start playing after I can't play any longer?
As long as we're just talking about what could and what might happen, I'm perfectly happy to hear someone say the U.S, should be more agressive and jerky.
I guess you don't have a B.S. in economics?
As to whether the American culture would continue influencing the world... That depends on which culture you are talking about. I don't think there still is a definitive "American" culture, if there even ever was one.
Dissolving the Federal Government would not necessarily destroy state governments.
Give a hypothetical of how America "ceases to exist".
If you are dealing with a culture that respects strength then you must be strong.
If you are dealing with a culture that respects compassion then you must have compassion.
What happens if you deal with two cultures who have opposite beliefs on strength and compassion? That is when things get tricky.
I think America needs to settle the war of ideologies it is currently involved in first.
Steve, we don't even make our own steel anymore. What is so unique and strong about the American economy that the world outside the U.S. couldn't survive? What would they miss? Our shopping skills? Our skills in creative mortgageing? Our celebutards?
Read the question over again: If the U.S. were gone (and I assure you, it won't last forever), would it be remembered as a Rome or would it be immediately forgotten?
We still need more information about your "if the U.S. were gone" question.
The economy of the world is like a big spiderweb with the USA in the middle.
How is it a non-sequiter? You are talking about China and Europe cashing in their dollars. You then compare it to Rome.
In Rome precious metals were used for currency.
In the USA paper (backed by a promise not precious metals) is used for currency.
The collapse of the dollar will have a far greater impact on the world economy than the collapse of Rome did because the currency in people's hands will be nothing more than fancy toilet paper. All those dollars in your bank account have nothing to back them but a promise. A gold coin in your hand is a fact, not a promise.
The only mad hatter here is you. You raise a question and when the other members of the forum ask you for clarifications on your question you start making claims about steel production and adding addendum's to your original question but you never address the information we need to answer your question. You then go on to say that China and the UE would get along fine if the dollar crashed. The crashing of the dollar would have a devastating impact on the entire world economy simply because such a large number of consumer goods are purchased with dollars.
So, to answer your original question we still need to know how the U.S. ceases to exist and how you define the US's influence in the world.
For some reason you remind me of a certain character in the Monty Python movie Life of Brian. I think it was John Cleese and the group was having their "What have the Roman's ever done for us?" argument and through out the discussion members of the group kept chiming in with good things the Roman's had done. At the end the question became, "Aside from all of the things that the Roman's have done for us... What have the Roman's done for us?"
You seem so blinded by your ideology that you can not see anything else. You can call that a non-sequiter, I call it an observation.
OSC wote at least the first issue of "Ultimate Iron Man". The first issue was really nifty. After that, the quality of writing dropped drastically.
Steve: You wrote: "Economy of ancient world still used metals for currency. We use paper and a promise. Gold has never been worth zero, paper currency has." The grammar is so screwed up that I'm not sure what you're talking about. The closest thing I can figure has nothing to do with the discussion. That's why the statement is a non sequitur.
If you need more to answer my question or if you can't understand my question, I don't care to hear your answer. At any rate, I don't think you have the ability to answer because I don't think you have the ability to imagine the world without the U.S.
You have several degrees.
You are a lawyer.
You have taught in inner city schools.
Yet, you can't follow my dialect of English to figure out that what I am saying is as simple as:
Roman currency = gold/silver money
US currency = paper money
Fall of Rome: Gold money = Gold
Fall of USA: paper money = paper
The fall of Rome did not affect any change in the value of it's currency as it was backed by the metals used to make the currency. The fall of the US would have a greater impact as their is nothing backing it but a promise.
And yes: The grammar of "Economy of ancient world still used metals for currency. We use paper and a promise. Gold has never been worth zero, paper currency has." is so screwed up I don't know what you thought you were talking about.
Which brings me to a question: I'm beginning to suspect, from:
(1) The screwed up grammar (like what I just quoted and the phrase "my dialect of English" you used in your last post) you sometimes use;
(2) The fact that you don't know things like the phrase "die in a fire", famous books like The Forever War, recent movies like "Jesus Camp", what Civics is, what a "mick" is, who certain celebrites (like Kevin Federline and Paris Hilton) are, and so on but you don't simply look them up like anyone else would;
(3) The way you sometimes imitate other posts, and various other things;
that you're not a person at all.
You're a 'bot, aren't you? Someone has hacked onto this forum and hacked up a cheap Eliza clone/'bot to torment us.
I don't speak to 'bots. Please go away now.
But I wouldn't expect you to know that, being a 'bot.
American culture is not exported by the US government. It is exported by the American media companies. Ergo, a collapse of the US government would not effect a change in the exportation of American culture.
It demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of history and the modern world. Here's a few reasons why America is nothing like Rome:
1: There are alternatives.
Whether you lived in Thrace, Judaea, or Gaul, there really was no civilized alternative to Rome. If Rome fell, there was nothing even remotely like it. That simply isn't true today. If America somehow "fell", that would not have anywhere near the effect people think it would. Our dollar has lost much of its value; Europe and China can support their own currencies. Sure, some Asian countries would be out an employer for cheap labor; but China would gladly pick up the tab.
2: America consists of all Americans, not a few powerful individuals.
If you look at the history, especially around the rise of the Empire, you realize a fundamental truth, not only about Rome, but the entire civilized world throughout all of history until the Victorian age: a nation was only as strong as its leaders. A powerful man would go out, gather an army, and conquer Rome, and now he's in charge--until the next guy does. The people didn't rise up to stop Julius Caesar, nor to take revenge on the men who murdered him. One tyrant was as good as the next.
America is NOT like that. George Bush is on thin ice. Thousands of Americans have died in a senseless war. Even if no one takes action to remove him and his regime, he'll still automatically be gone in 2 years. There is no way he could ever gather some sort of army and take over. Not a fucking chance. The world doesn't work that way anymore. 300 million people believe in America, and the moment it becomes worth the risk, revolution WILL occur.
Yes, it WILL. The fact that it hasn't yet happened is not evidence that it won't. Rulers of the medieval and classical periods would sacrifice tens, if not hundreds of thousands of their own people in wars of aggression, all the while treating their own people like shit, practicing slavery, and generally being bastards. And people put up with it, to a point. Whenever they'd had too much, they rose up. It isn't hard to kill one king and his ten thousand men when you have a million.
Simply put, the state of the union is bad--relatively. Thousands have died, which is terrible; but it's not enough to warrant revolution. Now, if he decides to, say, attack Iran, and maybe try to draft people...well, that would just be absurd, and if Congress didn't immediately override him and begin impeachment proceedings, then you bet your ass there would be at LEAST massive demonstrations and civil disobedience.
3: Define "fall"
When Rome fell, it was a tragedy. Western civilization was set back 1,000 years. Or was it?
Classical history focuses on the Mediterranean. Athens was a city of a million people who lived in wealth and prosperity, while the barbaric northerners were barely out of the caves. (A metaphorical exaggeration, but you get the point).
Then, when Rome falls, a very, very long process I might add, suddenly the camera moves up north to Western Europe, and the narration says "and look at civilization now, all these illiterate barbarians wandering around". The north was barbaric by Rome's standards before and after the empire's fall. But it was advancing, as it had been doing before and during Rome. These things take time. The Mediterranean had a couple millenia's head start, no doubt due to their proximity to the origin of civilization, and the ease of living in such a plentiful climate.
Meanwhile, just because Rome "fell" doesn't mean every person, place, and thing in it ceased to exist. Italy, the core provinces of Rome, kept their roads, their wealth, and their education. There were universities in Italy in the 9th century. Venice was a republic (that's right, a medieval democracy) for its entire existence. The barbaric ways of the "Dark Ages" hardly seemed to apply to Italy.
To say nothing of Byzantium, which continued every tradition of East Roman civilization until its fall to the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century, by which time the so-called "Renaissance" was in full swing.
Roman civilization never ended. An empire did. Empire is, and always was, the legacy of powerful individuals with gold and armies. It is not equivalent to civilization.
Why is this important? Because the world is outgrowing empire. The 6 billion people of the world are owning their own civilization. For the first time ever, people in every corner of the world can communicate without consent or restriction by their leaders. Where freedoms are limited, the limitations are breaking down. Where people cannot afford this communication, infrastructure is being built to ensure someday they can. It isn't advancing perfectly everywhere, nor it is going on all by itself, but it is an inexorable process that world leaders both wise and foolish cannot stop, only hinder.
The "fall" of America would only be the fall of a regime. 300 million Americans would still exist, and would still be Americans.