Most people think Americans are white people but that's not true. There are Asians, mainly Chinese and South East Asians, Africans, mainly Somalians, and even the forgotten natives. And yes, American culture is dominant, but what really makes up American culture? Most Americans are of German descendant. So can we say that America is German?
Well that's unknown still because there are other germanic tribes such as the poles and casimir. Venice is the modern addition to August's ancient roman empire who also seem similar to the germans... White people appear in the native set (Kamehameha, Pachacuti), middle east/africa (ahmad al mansur, Ramses) set and asian (ramkamheng, oda) set as well...
Not really a fact. There was no one measuring GDP before 1934 and those estimates are inaccurate anyway. Always? Really? What about when the only civilizations were in Mesopotamia? It's improbable that India and China had 60-70% of the worlds GDP when there wasn't even civilization there yet.
What you really mean is that from the fall of the Roman Empire until the Industrial revolution, China and India had appx. 60-70% of the worlds GDP*
*We don't really have accurate information of how strong the economies of western hemisphere were before the European's invaded the Americas, but they may be larger than we realize considering the fortunes of gold that people like Columbus stole from them.
I also agree that India is very underrated for some reason. They should be higher up on the list. As high up as China, if not higher. Heck, the Chinese worship an Indian.
Yeeeeeaaaahhhh.......right. It must be fun to just make up "facts." Statements like these are why I'm going to just stick to Civ (the game) discussions in these forums from here on out. Americans aren't white people---LMFAO. Most of German descent? Try English, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Irish, etc.
As you can see from the graph there, Germans are the largest single ancestry in the US according to self-reported surveys, far ahead of all other ancestries, and certainly the largest white ethnic group.
Other thing to consider, do you really think that american culture do affect more people than chinese culture? Chinese culture do affect 2 bilion people in china alone. Don't bother counting the number of people at SEasia, other orient countries, the himalayas, and the great plains.
You mean 1.4 billion people in China, and that is a number that will decrease in the future.
With the exception of Vietnam, all of Southeast Asia is influenced more by India than by China. Tibet (the Himalayas) is influenced just as much by India as by China, and to be honest, probably more. If by "great plains" you mean Central Asia, Chinese influence there is scant. The primary influences there are Arabic, Persian, and Islamic.
The second in both cases, really - the British did much the same with theirs in the imperial period.
You have to take that figure with a pinch of salt, though, because the way Americans define 'white' is not the way the rest of the world does. Racial self-identity is a huge thing in the US, since it's used to define cultural identity; while Europeans use skin colour as a descriptive, and to define a trait one is born with rather than one someone chooses to adopt, there are physically wholly white people in America who identify as black via a grandparent, or as "Hispanic" (a US-favoured term really only descriptive of mestizo peoples such as the majority of Mexicans, but which is applied indiscriminately to anyone from Spanish-speaking Latin America or with ancestry in that region, including those of 100% white European descent). Ethnically wholly white groups like Semitic peoples might not identify in America as white, if they consider (e.g.) "white" and "Jewish" to be mutually exclusive cultural identities (similarly, most Americans don't consider Arabs white, despite their also being a Semitic people). There was a recent National Geographic magazine photo showcase on the way Americans self-identify - some of the identities they choose are bizarre when contrasted with the associated images.
I'm not really sure you understood either of the points I was making. I have no interest in putting a horse in this race, because it's a nonsensical race. I was simply remarking on the limited scope of China's influence, especially in poorer parts of the world. But hey, good luck in your post as British Ambassador to CFC.
As to how Americans do or don't identify as white, I think you should let them decide the standards as they see fit, as they probably have more experience with the nuances of assimilation of race and cultural identity than any nation before them. They've not always got it right, but they've also attempted to navigate the waters without relying on old fashioned imperialism to ensure everyone gets along. Further, to imply that skin color is akin a trait someone chooses, like choosing to belong to a subculture, seems a bit daft. Further, had you read the categories in the census data, you'd realize that no, Semitic ethnicities did not self report as a distinct race but are counted as white, because the reality is that race and culture are not assumed to have the same object.
And the reason that most prefer the term Hispanic is because, unlike mestizo, it doesn't have a history of pejorative use, and people don't generally call themselves degrading terms by choice.
As you can see from the graph there, Germans are the largest single ancestry in the US according to self-reported surveys, ahead of all other ancestries, and certainly the largest white ethnic group.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but Wikipedia? At least give us the base source that Wiki is citing instead. Sorry, I've had a few bad experiences with Wiki trolls... I also agree with you, and others, that India is one of the most underrated civs on this list. Hinduism is still the one of the oldest, most influential religions in the world, and it is even gathering Western adherents to its practices and mannerisms (Phelps, Norman. Changing the Game: Why the Battle for Animal Liberation Is So Hard and How We Can Win It) Probably not the best source in the world, but as an American living dead center in the Mid-West, there is a lot of truth to this.
This may sound a bit snobbish, but if you ever travel, you'll soon realize there's no argument to the contrary. American culture is everywhere. I can't think of any place I've ever been where I didn't see Coca-Cola; sold or empties lying around, and I've been in some dirt poor places. Everyone knows McDonalds and Beyoncé. I'm not kidding. You'd be amazed the places where you'll find kids who know Beyoncé's music. They'll have no idea what soy sauce is though.
For better or worse, American culture is the first truly globally exported culture, and the first to be 'aspirational' to basically the whole world.
But really, this poll is asking an unanswerable question, because no culture or civilization has ever existed in a vacuum.
see, like i said before, imbalanced view. When chinese people drinks cola, thats westernization, but when european drinks tea, they are not orientalized. Can you think any one place in the world where you can't find tea?
Also, you'll also find that Jackie Chan and kung fu is just as famous as Beyonce and RnB.
What i want to say here is that when you really look at how culture asimilate, they actually merged, not dominating. The culture that you called american, is actually a cocktail of the world culture, that is the reason why it can easily reaccepted everywhere in the world.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but Wikipedia? At least give us the base source that Wiki is citing instead. Sorry, I've had a few bad experiences with Wiki trolls... I also agree with you, and others, that India is one of the most underrated civs on this list. Hinduism is still the one of the oldest, most influential religions in the world, and it is even gathering Western adherents to its practices and mannerisms (Phelps, Norman. Changing the Game: Why the Battle for Animal Liberation Is So Hard and How We Can Win It) Probably not the best source in the world, but as an American living dead center in the Mid-West, there is a lot of truth to this.
Shrug. If someone wanted the base source, they could go to the article and find out themselves. It isn't that difficult. The chart was from the 2000 US Census, by the way.
And yeah, it does seem common to underrate India's impact and overrate China's. I wonder why.
No, I haven't been to China. And I honestly feel little desire to. I'd rather go to Japan.
Have you been to America lately? Have you eaten hamburgers or fries lately? Have you drunk Coke or Pepsi lately? Does the computer you use have a Microsoft or Apple OS? Have you listened to an American singer or band lately? Have you watched a Hollywood film lately? Have you spoken English lately?
Seriously, your questions are meaningless. The fact that a lot of things are manufactured in China today (for American corporations, btw) is completely irrelevant to the question of China's impact on history (the thread title).
And you also missed my point, which is that India is underrated.
How are anyone else even in this race beside England and the Mongols?
Half of China's glory period was the Yuan dynasty, which was very much a part of the Mongol empire (in fact, Han Chinese people in the last thousand years didn't rule China until the 1900s, except for a dark period of isolation between yuan and ming). They also killed half the world's population and sacked all major cultural centers of the era. It was by far the largest man-caused forced migration in human history. It is directly linked to major accomplishments in Chinese, Indian, and Persian history, while single handedly causing the destruction of Russia and Arabia (at Arabia's peak world influence no less). A ridiculous number of people today (including a remarkable percentage of white people) are direct descendants of the Mongols (genealogy tests). If that weren't enough by itself, the Mongols spread the black plague to Europe and introduced Europeans to weaponized gunpowder. Rome has nothing on the accomplishments of the Mongol empire, besides the western bias.
The English created America (the current dominant world power), and ruled over half the world period. It is single handedly responsible in drawing something like 33% of all contested borders in the world today. Its language is the de facto world language. Its culture is known in depth in more parts of thee world than any other culture (except maybe America, but again, that's an offshoot of the British empire, and its in many ways an extension of English culture).
America and China should be nowhere near that list (although they are both poised to surpass Mongols/England by the time their current golden ages end). Rome and Greece and laughable and only mentioned because of the western bias of these forums and the composition of the civfanatics community (90% from the western world, mostly europe).
For those who are not familiar with the modern world cultural, technological, and physical impacts of the British and Mongol empires... Read Wikipedia. Its ridiculous.
No, I haven't been to China. And I honestly feel little desire to. I'd rather go to Japan.
Have you been to America lately? Have you eaten hamburgers or fries lately? Have you drunk Coke or Pepsi lately? Does the computer you use have a Microsoft or Apple OS? Have you listened to an American singer or band lately? Have you watched a Hollywood film lately? Have you spoken English lately?
Seriously, your questions are meaningless. The fact that a lot of things are manufactured in China today (for American corporations, btw) is completely irrelevant to the question of China's impact on history (the thread title).
And you also missed my point, which is that India is underrated.
i also read that you think people overate china. In my opinion they sit at the right place at number 3 or 4, sharing the place with greece.
One tier higher than america.
Go to china if you have time, and see for yourself what a cultural citadel they are. Heck they even hold their culture inside american cities (chinatown, remember?), how can you say that they are submitting to other culture in their homeland.
And about impact to history, china have shaped the 'other half of the ancient world'. The one thats not written in european history up until 16th century.
What's interesting about India is how much their contribution to science is underrated. Everyone talks about Indian religion and Greek science, not realizing how much our maths are built on an Indian foundation (brought to Europe by the Arabs). This includes the number system currently used by the entire world, the concept of zero and so on. Most of the fundamentals, really.
Edit: allow me to add another, unrelated thought. I think that most people don't suffer fron Eurocentrism as much as they suffer from what I would call "present-day centrism", the notion that Right Now is a more important moment in time than all the others. This also leads people to see as more important things from the past that have an influence today, in front of things from the past that influenced thousands of years of history before expiring at some point. I don't agree with this viewpoint, but then again I also don't vote in this type of poll (though I do find the discussion interesting).
Well that's unknown still because there are other germanic tribes such as the poles and casimir. Venice is the modern addition to August's ancient roman empire who also seem similar to the germans... White people appear in the native set (Kamehameha, Pachacuti), middle east/africa (ahmad al mansur, Ramses) set and asian (ramkamheng, oda) set as well...
You could have done a google search and clicked on the second result to see that yes, most Americans are of german descent, or that only 62,4% of Americans self identify as White. So 4 in 10 Americans don't consider themselves white; I'd say that's pretty significant. Further, the demographics are quickly changing; the trend is that whites America will be a minority sometime in the next 30 years. But Yeeeeeaaaahhhh.......right..."facts."
You're wrong, I'm right, and here's why. Go to Wikipedia or google "American descendants by nation" and here's what you'll get: (But first, let's remember that 'whites' are people who come from any nation in Europe--Germany, Poland, France, Norway, Italy, England, etc. and most Russians. Whites don't only mean a cowboy from Texas as those 'whites' came later in history--just ask the Native Indians).
Analysis by 2000 Federal Population Census on Wikipedia, the top 15 largest ancestries in the U.S. #1 German 15.2%; Irish 10.8% African 8.8%; #4 English 8.7%; American 7.2% (that one's interesting, dumb dumbs don't even know where they came from); Mexican 6.5%; #7 Italian 5.6%; Polish 3.2%, French 3.0%. I'll stop at the top 9.
So most Americans clearly are NOT of German descent, unless you count 15.2% as a majority (in which case you need to go back to school). Sure they're a larger single group than any other one group, but all I have to do is combine the Irish and English, and already 'most' Americans are NOT of German descent. No charge for the schooling.
Moderator Action: Please remember that you are from differing places in the world and have differing points of view regarding history and culture. You have also been educated from differing points of view. Please be respectful of the views of others and remain civil in your discussions.
It is not civil to say "You're wrong and I am right" or to post shrug type comments. The focus of the discussion must be the topic and not other posters. Continued posting of personal comments will result in thread closure.
What's interesting about India is how much their contribution to science is underrated. Everyone talks about Indian religion and Greek science, not realizing how much our maths are built on an Indian foundation (brought to Europe by the Arabs). This includes the number system currently used by the entire world, the concept of zero and so on.
You'll have to sum that programme for me, I can't listen to it. But all sources I could check say that the Indians discovered 0 as an actual number (as opposed to an empty space in a positional numbering system). The Mayans also discovered it independently, but much later.
I'm not really sure you understood either of the points I was making. I have no interest in putting a horse in this race, because it's a nonsensical race. I was simply remarking on the limited scope of China's influence, especially in poorer parts of the world. But hey, good luck in your post as British Ambassador to CFC.
I wasn't referring to that specific point, only to the explicit remark "For better or worse, American culture is the first truly globally exported culture, and the first to be 'aspirational' to basically the whole world". My point being that, common as that myth is, it's incorrect. That has nothing to do with America's relative importance - indeed you'll have seen from my past posts that I've insisted on rating America highly (and not for such trivia as hamburgers) - the fact that America wasn't the first society to export its culture globally doesn't imply that it hasn't done so - it's simply an erroneous statement
As to how Americans do or don't identify as white, I think you should let them decide the standards as they see fit, as they probably have more experience with the nuances of assimilation of race and cultural identity than any nation before them.
Once again, that's not my point. My point is that the American concept of race differs from everyone else's. It's not that either side has the "right" definition - there's always going to be a degree of arbitrariness in the metric - it's that the two are not comparable. If someone points out to a forum of people from different societies that 62% of Americans consider themselves white, the Europeans, Africans and Asians reading it will come away with a very different idea of what that means than the Americans will - Americans are referring to a concept of 'racial identity', the rest of us to a physiological attribute. It is likely that rather more than 62% of Americans are physiologically white. Since there's much less of a conscious "white" communal identity in America than a communal identity for other racial groups, it's likely that many of those with the option to identify as a different group will favour that identity over being 'white', so the 62% figure is probably close to the minimum proportion of 'white' Americans.
They've not always got it right, but they've also attempted to navigate the waters without relying on old fashioned imperialism to ensure everyone gets along. Further, to imply that skin color is akin a trait someone chooses, like choosing to belong to a subculture, seems a bit daft.
Obviously within the limits of the available options based on their ancestry, but as that National Geographic piece pointed out, that is basically how it works, yes. For example, by any typical metric I would be white - however I've been told I have Native American ancestry through a great-grandfather, which might well be enough to qualify me as Native American in the US were I to choose that identity (and had grown up in a cultural context that made it meaningful for me to do so).
As for the jibe about "old-fashioned imperialism", there's no political capital to be made here on either side. European concepts of race no longer even use the terminology of patronising 19th Century anthropologising (negroid, mongoloid etc.), even if the broad divisions are similar - as noted, the intent is descriptive only. On the American side, racial identity is so strong not because of a desire to help people get along, but as an outgrowth of such attitudes as "not a drop of black blood" (a segregationist slogan classing everyone with African descent as black, and so a target, and taken on in turn by a community united by a shared sense of persecution) - those concepts, too, have evolved into something more positive over time.
Further, had you read the categories in the census data, you'd realize that no, Semitic ethnicities did not self report as a distinct race but are counted as white, because the reality is that race and culture are not assumed to have the same object.
Fair enough, but I was making a general point about the way Americans define race with that as nothing more than an example - possibly an ill-chosen one, as I've noted before that American popular thought makes an arbitrary distinction among Semitic peoples, with Jews being perceived as white but Arabs not (whether or not the census treats Arabs as white).
And the reason that most prefer the term Hispanic is because, unlike mestizo, it doesn't have a history of pejorative use, and people don't generally call themselves degrading terms by choice.
As far as I can tell, mestizo is currently a neutral term (unlike others such as half-caste or mulatto) - Wikipedia uses it as a neutral descriptor for the majority ethnicity in Mexico, for instance. But again you miss my point, which was not semantic. Indeed, it's precisely the point that 'mestizo' and 'Hispanic' are not synonyms - "Hispanic" people in the American usage range from full-blooded Quechua in Peru to fully Spanish-descended Colombians or Argentinians. They will often, as an aggregate, be described as non-white because the typical American image of "Hispanic" peoples is - basically - of Mexicans, however in doing so they count a lot of physiologically white people as non-white.
What's interesting about India is how much their contribution to science is underrated. Everyone talks about Indian religion and Greek science, not realizing how much our maths are built on an Indian foundation (brought to Europe by the Arabs). This includes the number system currently used by the entire world, the concept of zero and so on. Most of the fundamentals, really.
Yeah, India is extremely underrated and Greece ridiculously overrated. IMHO the 'only' truly giant accomplishment of Greece is Intellectual Life but saying that they invented mathematics/philosophy is still overrated:
Spoiler:
Greeks invented theatre? Don't be silly, theatre existed earlier in South/East Asia (and something similar to theatre has appeared in really many cultures - why exactly western concept of theatre is better? culture can't be measured as economy )
Greeks invented democracy? This democracy which lasted for less than 100 years until epic fail and being completely abandoned forever? And this democracy which appeared 100 years after Indian democratic states?
Greeks invented epic literature? Mahabharata is not only older but TEN TIMES longer than Illad and Odyssey COMBINED. And in my opinion it is much, much deeper than Illad/Odyssey (especially Odyssey which was basically ancient adventure story ).
Greeks had sophisticated culture? Yes, they had, so what? Many parts of the world had as sophisticated culture as ancient Greece
Greeks invented mathematics? No, mathematics was started by ancient Near East societies and India.
Greeks invented 'civilised world'? Greeks, who had insane numbers of slaves and were highly xenophobic/racist since Persian wars?
Sparta was awesome? This disgusting totalitarian state?
I still voted for Greece in my top5 civilisations, despite all these things . These guys had absolutely insane impact on Science, Scientific Method and Intellectual Western Civilisation (and global intellectual civilisation). This alone is enough to justify them being in the top5 - but I don't care about anything more from Homer's motherland
Personally I am really astonished by low positions of:
- India, while Greek civilisation had immense impact on Western intellectual life India had immense impact on Eastern intellectual life - we are talking here about thousands of years and billions of people.
...Arabia, France, Germany and Russia. To be honest I expected insane Eurocentrism and I have unexpected opposite problem - underrated European superpowers O_o What the hell, civ fanatics? Arabia is one of the most influential civs ever, along with Greece/Rome/India/China/Babylon/Mongolia/western colonial superpowers. However what I find more shocking is ridiculously low position of freakin: - Spain (they created the entire new Latin American culture and changed Americas forever O_o) - France: this country is the most popular tourist attraction after China and had extremely big cultural impact not only in the West but in the whole world o_O
- Germany and Russia - uhm, giant military superpowers and home of hundreds of great scientists, anyone?
Haha, at least I can't really complain on Eurocentrism
CURRENT RANKING:
1) Rome - 52,5% of votes - i wouldn't say Rome is overrated because this empire basically created European civilisation. Impact of Rome is very visible even today, after 2000 years; architecture, law which is popular in the whole world, impact on European infrastructure which is still visible today, Christianity, Latin culture which exists till modern era, and 'promoting' Greek culture, one of the biggest empires in the history, and inspiration for Byzantine Empire, Charlemagne, Holy Roman Empire, Papal States, hell even XX century totalitarian regimes... Yeah, they deserve on this position.
2) Greece - 36.88% of votes - as I said, they are very overrated in each category except from Science and Philosophy when they were... Revolutionary, to say at least.
3) England - 32,5% of votes - biggest empire ever, starting Industrial Era which had giant impact on the whole mankind. 'Founding' USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa. Crippling Indian economy. :/ Home of science and culture.
4) China - 25% of votes - they were just awesome in each possible cathegory
5) America - 24,38% of votes - founders of Post - Industrial World. Nuff said.
6) Mongolia - 12,5% - biggest land empire ever.
7) Arabia - 11,25% - you know, Islam. From West Africa to Indonesia/India.
8) Egypt - 11,25% - extremely famous and impressive culture, one of the oldest civilisations ever.
9) Germany - 10%
10) Babylon/Russia - 9,38%.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
(though I do find the discussion interesting).
)
