Nationalism, modesty and airplanes in the Infinite age

[FredLC]

One of my weak points, I admit, is that I continue something of a child, in some respects, after I grew old. I suppose this is excusable in this game-dedicated forum, specially because liking (video)games is one of the symptoms of this elongated childhood.

Anyway, recently, I have download a demo for the upcoming game Bioshock Infinite, and saw that the same team that made quite an eloquent and unique criticism to Objectivism in the first installment of that game, came back with a new and promissing target in the new game - Nationalism.

(Much better idea than attacking collectivism, done by a lesser team in Bioshock 2, that was uninspired and felt like beating a dead horse).

As I pondered over such philosophical game prospect, I remembered a video I saw a while ago on youtube, featuring Bill Maher and his usual criticism regarding the USA. Starting at 01:40, he takes a shot at Brazil - what is fine with me, but curiously considering how much he liked to accuse the Bush Administration of being bigoted towards other nations, and the fact that this very video was supposed to be about the need US citzens being humble.

Now, the bit that I find curious is at 02:05, because he said the US "invented the airplaine and the light bulb", and Brazil invented the "bikini wax".

The many uses of such wax notwithstanding, the choice to bring airplane to the table is a fascinating demonstration of ignorance, because exactly to that invention, a fair number of people claim that it was actually a Brazilian, Alberto Santos-Dumont that has actually created that machine, and not the Wright Brothers.

Now, I'm not claiming Dumont to be right, and the Wrights to be wrong, when I say that Maher was being ignorant; I'm just pointing out that he unwillingly set himself up , as he could not have chose worse example than the airplane here, demonstrating he is ignorant of the controversy.

Anyway, deciding who is the father of aviation boils down to a technicality; defining what constitutes a full airplane - having it's take off/landing gears attached to it or not (Dumont's plane took off on it's own, the Wright Brothers plane flew first, but needed a trail catapult). Either definition could be fine, but apparently nationalism plays quite a bit of a role when people chose how to define such invention. Here is an excerpt of the link I gave:

The first fixed-wing aircraft: The 14-bis versus the Wright Flyers

There is still controversy over whether the Wright 1903 Flyer I, or the 14-Bis was the first true airplane.

The Wrights used a launch catapult for their 1904 and 1905 machines, but the aircraft of Santos-Dumont and other Europeans had wheeled undercarriages. The Wright Brothers continued to use skids, which necessitated the use of a dolly running on a track and the use of catapult in the absence of a headwind.

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, founded in France at the beginning of the century to verify aviation records, stated among its rules that an aircraft should be able to take off under its own power in order to qualify for a record. Supporters of Santos-Dumont's claim believe that this means the 14-bis was, technically, the first successful fixed-wing aircraft.
14-bis on an old postcard

Opinions vary on whether the Wright Flyer or the 14-bis was the more practical (and thus the "first") heavier-than-air flying machine. Both designs produced aircraft that made free, manned, powered flights. Which one was "first" or "more practical" is a matter of how those words are defined. No one could contest that the Wrights flew first or that Santos-Dumont took off on wheels before the Wrights and earned a variety of prizes and official records in France. Patriotic pride heavily influences opinions of the relative importance and practicality of each aircraft, thus causing debate. Americans prefer definitions that make the Wrights the "first" to fly, while Brazilians believe that Santos-Dumont had the first "real", practical aircraft, and that his nationality may have caused his accomplishments to not receive worldwide recognition.

Many other inventors could also claim to have produced the first flying machine. A long series of "flying machines" achieved some of the criteria that are required of an "aircraft." These achievements, most of them first accomplished in the 1800s, include being able to sustain flight using lighter-than-air craft, powered machines which could generate enough lift to rise off the ground, but which were not controllable, and unpowered winged vehicles that flew briefly and that could be controlled. For example, Frederick Marriott's Avitor was a slightly-heavier-than-air dirigible that was fully controllable. It relied primarily on a large hydrogen gas bag for flight, but it had wings and could only get off the ground by moving forward so that the wings generated the additional lift needed to overcome its weight. Could such a hybrid be "the first heavier-than-air flying machine"? It is only one of many examples of a long history of flying contraptions, so this debate could easily be extended well beyond being about simply the 14-Bis versus the Wright Flyer.

So, I guess this thread is multi-topical. What would be the best definition of airplane? fine commentary. The wrongness of extended childhood? Ok as well. The silliness (or greatness) of nationalism? Fine too. Or perhaps the irony a comedy host accusing a whole nation of being bigoted and self-absorbed in their own illusions of greatness, while he himself displays a symptom of that very disease? even better.

I'm curious to see which part of this little tale will actually take root here.

Regards .

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Don't we talk about who invented flight, not who invented take-off?

This thing needs a carrier aircraft to start flying. Does that mean it isn't an airplane?

 

[Glassfan]

In many cases, such as "Robert Fulton invented the Steamboat", there have been numerous individuals and groups, in different countries, working on it simultaneously. That's called synchronicity. The winner is usually the one who first produces a working model, or files a patent.

I see your main point, however, as being the pride of Nationalism. We Americans invented a lot of stuff in our prime. When the Russians were a power they claimed the same. Dito England, France and now China. Brazil, as a rising power, will probably go through the same prideful claims. It's mostly harmless and it makes the people feel good about themselves. Eventually you'll be the first ones on the moon (after China claims this)!

 

[W|M]

Alberto Santos-Dumont flew his plane around the Eiffel Tower soon after the first flight, which is pretty conclusive proof that he made a plane; There is no conclusive proof for (for example) a Brazilian on the moon before Armstrong.

 

[Glassfan]

There is no conclusive proof for (for example) a Brazilian on the moon before Armstrong.

There will be in twenty years. I was being facetious to make the point of nationalistic prideful boasting.

It's, I think, not a question of historical acuracy. But rather what the common people believe of themselves.

 

[Cutlass]

As I understand it, the credit to the Wrights is based on the fact that they not just got into the air, but they created the core concept of the controls of aircraft that are the direct ancestors of the controls on successful aircraft ever since. So they did create the aircraft that worked.

 

[Narz]

This thread is all over the place. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'm largely a child myself. It helps when I have to play with one (especially when you're co-parent is a lady who's forgotten how to play ).

If I wasn't able to let myself go a bit & be free to let my tongue (or fingertips online) slip & slide stream of consciousness style sometimes I think I would go mad. I'm jealous of children, so free to jibber-jabber & play & dance & sing & run. Of course I'd not jealous of children who grow up poor or with terrible parents.

Don't know much about Brazil. Wouldn't mind coming for a visit (maybe for an ayahuasca ritual or something) if I ever could get the money. Obviously during the Northern Hemisphere's wintertime of course.

 

[Crezth]

As I understand it, the credit to the Wrights is based on the fact that they not just got into the air, but they created the core concept of the controls of aircraft that are the direct ancestors of the controls on successful aircraft ever since. So they did create the aircraft that worked.

Bingo.

Slightly related topic: in the aerospace industry, the Brazilians (and the Poles, actually) are well-renowned as spectacular aviators and brilliant aerospace engineers. So... no point in trying to lord anything over them. It won't change the reality of how skilled they are.

 

[Dachs]

If we were going to start listing Bill Maher's history gaffes (or instances of hypocrisy) we'd be here all night...

 

[Tee Kay]

If we were going to start listing Bill Maher's history gaffes (or instances of hypocrisy) we'd be here all night...

Or several.

 

[FredLC]

Don't we talk about who invented flight, not who invented take-off?

This thing needs a carrier aircraft to start flying. Does that mean it isn't an airplane?

Hehehe; aerospace industry going full circle?

I guess I could try to defend it's not an airplane per se, and nitipicky about what constitutes an airplane at all, but I was never actually trying to sell that those definitions that would confirm the credits belong to Santos-Dumont are the ones that are correct. Mostly, I was curious to see how many people were aware of the controversy at all in an international fora, or if this debate is an internal Brazilian thing...

As I understand it, the credit to the Wrights is based on the fact that they not just got into the air, but they created the core concept of the controls of aircraft that are the direct ancestors of the controls on successful aircraft ever since. So they did create the aircraft that worked.

Before I read a little bit on the projects by Santos-Dumont for this thread, I used to think (and argue with nationalistic people here) that, while conceivably some may defend that he was the first, overall the Wright brothers were of greater importance. But turns out he also created precursors of techs still in use today (like the introduction of movable parts in the wings for added stability).

Guess it's kind futile to try pinning down who actually had greater importance, and go with Isaac Newton's quote about shoulders and giants...

This thread is all over the place. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Rather deliberately; in fact, I went out of my way to make it this way. My posting history in this forum is enormously object and focused... I never actually spoke artistically or abstractly or relaxed here (save perhaps drawing threads), and always treated topics like I would threat legal petitions; building points following a syllogistic structure.

Guess I wanted to show a different personae there.

I'm largely a child myself. It helps when I have to play with one (especially when you're co-parent is a lady who's forgotten how to play ).

If I wasn't able to let myself go a bit & be free to let my tongue (or fingertips online) slip & slide stream of consciousness style sometimes I think I would go mad. I'm jealous of children, so free to jibber-jabber & play & dance & sing & run. Of course I'd not jealous of children who grow up poor or with terrible parents.

Ah, I wondered who would pick up this more relaxed point of the topic, instead of the most obvious attention grabbers of nationalism and ownership of credits. I'm not surprised it was you, Narz.

On the topic of being a child forever, I guess I'm luck in two topics; having kept friends that I know since childhood (so everybody is very comfortable with that sort of behavior, when it shows), and being confident enough to know that I don't have to be serious all the time in order to be a grown up...

Don't know much about Brazil. Wouldn't mind coming for a visit (maybe for an ayahuasca ritual or something) if I ever could get the money. Obviously during the Northern Hemisphere's wintertime of course.

Here is a topic I didn't foresee in the thread. You should definitively come.

Slightly related topic: in the aerospace industry, the Brazilians (and the Poles, actually) are well-renowned as spectacular aviators and brilliant aerospace engineers. So... no point in trying to lord anything over them. It won't change the reality of how skilled they are.

Really? Didn't know that. I know that Brazil and Canada had a skirmish a few years ago regarding patent violation problems of a projects of small personal jets from the Brazilian Company Embraser (don't even know if Embraser's claims were sustained), but that was as far as I knew in modern reputation of Brazilians in this topic...

 

[aronnax]

I really wish the whole of humanity would collectively stop 1) claiming countries invent things and then 2) use the word 'we' to refer to an ethnicity/government/nationality etc. when talking about an event unless they were actually there to do something.

No, Sweden didn't invent the dynamite. Alfred Nobel did. No, America did not invent the handphone, Martin Cooper did. Just like how England didn't write Midsummer's Night Dream, Britain didn't the steamship.

I want to hit people when they go "We defeated the Germans in WWII". No, you weren't there! You weren't alive! The Allied powers defeated the Germans, President Truman defeated the Germans, my Grandfather who fought in the war defeated the Germans in WWII". You did no sort of the thing. Just because you belonged to the country that did, does not make it that you can use the term "we" as to describe actual participation in it.

 

[Glassfan]

I really wish the whole of humanity would collectively stop 1) claiming countries invent things and then 2) use the word 'we' to refer to an ethnicity/government/nationality etc. when talking about an event unless they were actually there to do something.

No, Sweden didn't invent the dynamite. Alfred Nobel did. No, America did not invent the handphone, Martin Cooper did. Just like how England didn't write Midsummer's Night Dream, Britain didn't the steamship.

I want to hit people when they go "We defeated the Germans in WWII". No, you weren't there! You weren't alive! The Allied powers defeated the Germans, President Truman defeated the Germans, my Grandfather who fought in the war defeated the Germans in WWII". You did no sort of the thing. Just because you belonged to the country that did, does not make it that you can use the term "we" as to describe actual participation in it.

Good point. I have to admit that when I think we landed on the moon, or we discovered the polio vaccine, that makes me proud to be an American. And this is that Nationalistic pride from Fred's openning post. On the other hand, when I consider how we treated the Native Americans, African Americans, women, the poor, etc., it's a blot on my soul. It works both ways. I didn't land on the moon - nor did I ever own slaves. Yet, admittedly as a proud American, I accept the credit and the blame. Without the Nationalism, my moral life would be so less complicated.

It seems to me that many of our younger posters are completely free from American nationalistic pride, and are fully capable of freely bashing the United States without any self-doubt, guilt or responsibility that they themselves are Americans too.

p.s. Welcome back Dachs, missed you.

 

[Tee Kay]

I consider the sum total of all human achievements to be part of my personal heritage.

 

[Cutlass]

Before I read a little bit on the projects by Santos-Dumont for this thread, I used to think (and argue with nationalistic people here) that, while conceivably some may defend that he was the first, overall the Wright brothers were of greater importance. But turns out he also created precursors of techs still in use today (like the introduction of movable parts in the wings for added stability).

If you are going with total contribution to making the airplane a viable invention, IIRC the Wrights also discovered that an airplane wing should not be parallel to the body of the plane, but rather the front of the wing should be about 5 degree higher than the back. And they also discovered basics about the geometry of propellers that were a major increase in their efficiency.

So while many early pioneers of flight made important contributions, the the Wrights made at least 3 of the major early contributions that made flight a practical enterprise.

 

[Core Imposter]

No invention ever invented was not invented by Americans.

America is the aggregate collection of the superior genetic man. All such are American whether they have arrived here yet or not.

So that a Chinese man inventing a device or practice of value 3000 years ago did so in the glory of America, by the genetic value of America, in service to America. The actual date his genes arrive in American is not relevant to the point.

 

[Old Hippy]

I,ve just been googling and the wrights incorporated 3 of lawerence hargraves inventions in their plane (he refused to patent his ideas) so it was an Australian that really invented the airplane, but then to my dismay i found that its actually a North Korean invention along with the light bulb, ice cream, and hamburgers

 

[Tahuti]

An ethnicity could be seen as a collection of biologically related families just as a family can be seen as collection of biologically related individuals. And since a family raises children their own way, it is theoretically possible that nations can behave differently if the sense of nationhood bring about a certain upbringing like it is the case with most ethnic diaspora's.
But I doubt that would justify taking credit or blame for what your fellow "members" of the nation did.

 

[Crezth]

Really? Didn't know that. I know that Brazil and Canada had a skirmish a few years ago regarding patent violation problems of a projects of small personal jets from the Brazilian Company Embraser (don't even know if Embraser's claims were sustained), but that was as far as I knew in modern reputation of Brazilians in this topic...

Yeah, it's true. So, you can talk about heritage all you want, but what's really important is what you do with that heritage. In the case of America and Americans, it was Americans that invented the airplane, and, in large part, established much of the basis for modern aircraft design. This would be meaningless if we didn't continue to carry that effort forward, with us, into the future.

But, we do. And so do the Brazilians with their heritage. It's very puerile of anyone (then again, Maher is often puerile) to mock other nationalities for not being as "inventive" as the Americans. Other peoples certainly have reasons of their own to be proud; it goes without saying that nation's values will tend towards approval of that nation's own values.

One of my favorite examples of this snobbishness, an example I love to fervently debunk on a regular basis, is the idea that the French suck at war, or are morally inferior because of it. It's not like we praise the Germans for their efficacy at it, so I'm not really sure where the need for mockery comes in. But the French are, historically, some of Europe's most fearsome warriors. Had you made any joke about French failure in 1806, I daresay it'd be rare to elicit a smile from anybody living in England. It's about the same as mocking the Germans during the Battle of Britain, when Londoners were so convinced that it was the end of days for them.

I'm getting extremely off-topic, but suffice to say any idiot that mocks a nationality in the same breath that they praise another needs to critically review his own understanding of history before persisting in his ignorance. Or else they're just inviting someone to point out, I dunno, the Tuskegee Experiment, or Japanese Internment Camps, or the genocide of Native Americans.

Mentioning those things always wipes the smiles off of the faces of self-righteous American nationalists.

 

[Tee Kay]

Mentioning those things always wipes the smiles off of the faces of self-righteous American nationalists.

Actually, no; they'll usually bring up Nazis.