Center of the World: Redux (state, better, places, population)

[Cuttlefish]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

No, actually. Anything intelligent anyone has contributed so far to the discussion points to New York being an important world city but not the center.

So you're saying you want to hear some more unintelligent contributions just to waste more time?

It's done. The gist is NY is never the center of the world, heck no cities on this earth is its center. As long as Mr A has different needs/values/opinions than Mr B there will never be a center. When there's a global catastrophe and the humanity population dwindled to some lower numbers, that might change.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

So the thread overfilled, but it hasn't gotten tiresome for me yet.

I do believe you're earnest in what you say, but I don't believe what you say is right. Growing up in Los Angeles, I could go for a very long time without hearing about NYC, but perhaps my ears weren't hyperattuned to the city.

Los Angeles, as I said several times earlier, is the other "center of the world". It's the only place I've been to that feels self-sufficient and I don't hear about NYC most days. By the way - I was right, you are a transplant. I can usually spot them a mile away.

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

You talk about how you come across references to NYC no matter where you go, but you're talking about a very limited sphere in English-speaking North America where NYC has a much greater pull and is the friendly neighborhood megacity. Oddly enough, I was in Edmonton for two weeks last year and I certainly did not hit upon NYC references in anything close to every single day.

Which is why I also talked about American influence on the rest of the world. I guess your experience in Edmonton was different. I'll probably be going again this fall, Oct-Nov., and I usually go for 4 weeks or so. I find it hard to believe that people who talked to you, knowing you're from NY, didn't just talk your ear off about it like they do with me, and I'm not even from the city itself. The other place they always talk to me about is Vegas; for some reason, lots of Albertans love Vegas. I'm guessing it's a relatively short flight, cheap vacation.

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Which brings us to the problem of what you consider a NYC reference. Wall Street is fine, and for those in international finance around the world, it will be a rare day when they don't hear anything about the S&P500, the Dow Jones, NASDAQ and the like. However, your references to NYC through music and television (especially while listing artists that are decidedly not products of NYC) are misleading. What you are referencing to is American culture--not culture specific to NYC.

American culture is purveyed by the industries out of NYC and L.A. The music, television, motion picture, and to a lesser extent entertainment and news industries are based in those two major American cities. On top of that, the major agencies in the advertising and PR industry, which sell all of this for those other industries, are located in NYC primarily as well as in L.A.

American culture is not driven by Omaha, Dallas, Memphis, Cheyenne, Salt Lake City, etc... it is driven by the trends set in New York and Hollywood. It then spreads to the rest of the USA, and to the rest of the world. If you don't realize that, then you must have your head in the sand.

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

When you refer to how English has become the lingua franca of the entire world, that is nowhere near solely the product of NYC (or even the US given how the British and their empire wielded a bit of power in their heydays). Even with your specific mention of Borat, you are talking about a British movie done by a British comedian in a country where the Brits are the largest expat group--which means a very frail and winding link towards making NYC the center of the world.

English's influence on the world is mostly due to the USA's marketing of its culture to the rest of the world. As I pointed out before, that is done through NYC and Hollywood. Ask people in other parts of the world where in the USA they would like to go and they'll tell you NY, then L.A., and then maybe Vegas and Florida. Ask them what they want to see in the USA and they will give the things found in NY mostly - Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Times Square, etc.

The world's perception of "America" and "American" is tied to what they know from our media, which forces primarily images of all sorts from NY and L.A. onto them. What foreigners want to go to Branson, MO? Or to the Jersey Shore? They don't want "America" as we know it, they want "America" as they know it from what Madison Ave and Hollywood Blvd. taught them. Tell a Brit about the "Jersey Shore" and he'll have no clue, but tell him about Santa Monica and he'll know.

By the way, while "Borat" is the creation of a British actor, it is still a Hollywood - American - production. It was produced by 20th Century Fox which is one of the big 6 American movie production companies. Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Again, you probably missed most of the discussion about the difference between being the center of the world and being a very (or the most) important city in the world. NYC and the institutions it hosts are incredibly influential and the population of both the city and the metro is large. However, it is not so powerful as to be anything close to the primate city of the world. The analogy I drew before was for NYC's relation to the world be similar to that between the primate city and its country (for countries that do have primate cities). However, NYC does not serve that purpose simply because power and influence is so decentralized across the world.

OK, so you want to quibble over "center of the world"... Well, it's just some topic on an internet forum. Everyone will have a slightly different take on just precisely what is meant by "center of the world". That means that this is somewhat subjective.

Rather than dwell on that detail, I'm just going by what the general perception seems to be. Just looking at the other thread (that you left for some odd reason) it is clear that more people do concur with the idea that NY is the "center of the world" than those who don't agree with that. That's a reflection of the common perception. There is a reason NYC is the #1 tourist destination in the world, and it can be explained somewhat as "all roads lead to Rome." Yes, NYC is the modern Rome, a concept which you apparently eschew, but it's true.

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

NYC does not have the largest population, the largest metro, the largest GDP, nor does it play host to institutions with much direct power in politics (not in the way the capital of a powerful country does), nor is it at the forefront in almost every major economic sector, nor is it without peer in the sectors in which it is at the forefront. All this makes it apparent that NYC can not claim to be the center of the world. A powerful and influential city? Yes. Center of the world. No.

NYC has the largest mix of those things. In terms of finance, Wall St. is at the forefront of American economics, and the US is still at the forefront of global economics.

Today, the battle for control and influence is waged through culture and capitalism. You, like many others, believe the idea that the USA's power comes from our political and/or military prowess, and that's not true at all. It's not as Toby Keith sings:
"And you'll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
'Cause we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way"

No, that's not the American way. The American way is to advertise the boot, and convince you that you need it, and then sell it to you. Our nation's strength is capitalism. Selling. Fabricating "needs". You "need" this boot, here are some movies and music videos proving you need it, you need to buy it from us. Sure, we'll pay China to make the boot, but we'll sell it, we'll sell the movie that featured the boot, we'll partner the movie with Burger King to sell toys about the movie about the boot, etc. etc. etc... THAT'S the American Way. Toby Keith, and the masses who think like him, like you, are wrong.

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

You are also overestimating American mass entertainment and its effects on the rest of the world. I will tell you that China cares a lot more about Hong Kong and domestic films, television and music than it does about American films, television and music. Given that China hosts a pretty sizable chunk of the world's population, I'd say that's pretty important (though I've never really spent time there, I imagine India, the Indian diaspora and Bollywood can also be used in a similar argument). Even our more similar friends in Western Europe have strong domestic pop culture and entertainment industries which makes the argument that NYC (or LA) is the center of the world, rather than just influential, a bit flimsy.

Well, you haven't spent time there, and neither have I, but my college roommate did. He worked in Hong Kong for several years and routinely visited Beijing. China resists much American influence, but he said our movies are big there. Hong Kong, despite being handed over to China, operates much like it did under British control. He said it was almost like being in NY, but a little nicer and cleaner. He lived there after living in London for 4 years and living in NYC for the 6 years or so before that. It reminded him of NY, not London. He heard all about the US most days he was there.

Funny you would bring up Bollywood....think about it - Bollywood. Bollywood is Mumbai, India. Why doesn't Hollywood, California call itself "Humbai"??? Think about it. Do you suppose it could have to do with Bollywood's acknowledgement that the entire Hindi film industry is built on the basis laid by Hollywood??? The same can be said of any nation's movie industry, as Hollywood laid the foundation. India, in particular, has a huge American influence due to the proliferation of American business which is outsourced there.

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Many good metro systems actually are running for 20 or so hours of the day, and that is sufficient for most people. If it's 4 o'clock in the morning and I'm out, then I'm likely hammered and probably not too keen on wandering down into the subway station and wait (and there is usually quite a wait when it gets to be that late, which I'm sure you know) for the train. Instead, I'd probably take a taxi. The unfortunate thing is how exorbitantly expensive taxis are in NYC since their stupid medallion system hits the taxi drivers hard. Affordable and accessible taxis can also make possible ditching private car ownership. Of course, this isn't to take away from the marvels of having a 24/7 system--I'd greatly prefer all the mass transit systems to be 24/7. But I also greatly prefer if all the systems were clean, seldom smelled, were decently quiet, had clean and working restrooms, had handicap access/elevators at all stations, traincars that were designated for dollies/strollers/bikes, were climate-controlled at all stations, and had people who followed some very simple etiquette that would make the commute faster and more pleasant for everyone (something simple like DON'T HOLD THE FRICKING DOOR OPEN SO EVERYONE HAS TO WAIT FOR YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS TO GET ON THIS TRAIN, YES, THIS TRAIN, BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO SELFISH TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT ONE SO YOU'D RATHER MAKE US ALL WAIT AND SCREW UP THE TIMETABLE FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT TRAINS AND TRANSFERS (caps)). Now, some systems do provide some or all of these things. Unfortunately, NYC's system, as wonderful as its 24/7 schedule is, is lacking in some of the aforementioned things in comparison to good transit systems elsewhere. It's still great though, despite its shortcomings.

Spoken like a true hipster transplant. Are you upset because you were late to your hipster kickball league in Park Slope???

[K.O.N.Y]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

No, actually. Anything intelligent anyone has contributed so far to the discussion points to New York being an important world city but not the center.

It would be you to hammer this point home. Its just funny, really lmao. Everyone already established that centers of worlds only exist in lord of the rings and chronicles of narnia and not in the real world. Im perfectly content with the possibility of new york being the most important city anyway. The concept of this thread should have just died, as its ridiculous.At this point a dead horse is being beaten.......badly, with intense long paragraphs from people who get a kick out of trying to humble new york

[PDX_LAX]

Originally Posted by K.O.N.Y

It would be you to hammer this point home. Its just funny, really lmao. Everyone already established that centers of worlds only exist in lord of the rings and chronicles of narnia and not in the real world. Im perfectly content with the possibility of new york being the most important city anyway. The concept of this thread should have just died, as its ridiculous.At this point a dead horse is being beaten.......badly, with intense long paragraphs from people who get a kick out of trying to humble new york

Wow. Calling New York the most important city in the world = humbling? You're adorable.

As you just said, the concept of one city being the center of the world is ridiculous. The laughable part of this thread is people trying to portray a fictional world in which everything revolves around New York as a realistic description of the way things really are.

[K.O.N.Y]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

Wow. Calling New York the most important city in the world = humbling? You're adorable.

As you just said, the concept of one city being the center of the world is ridiculous. The laughable part of this thread is people trying to portray a fictional world in which everything revolves around New York as a realistic description of the way things really are.

when did i say that. I said i would settle with the most important title, as everyone in this thread already agreed that their couldnt be a center, i thought that was established in the first thread. Yet people get a fix out of dismantling everything new york saying its unimportant as this or not as significant in something with this

[PDX_LAX]

Originally Posted by K.O.N.Y

when did i say that. I said i would settle with the most important title, as everyone in this thread already agreed that their couldnt be a center, i thought that was established in the first thread. Yet people get a fix out of dismantling everything new york saying its unimportant as this or not as significant in something with this

Right here: "The concept of this thread should have just died, as its ridiculous."

People say New York isn't as important as this or isn't as significant as that because New Yorkers are saying stupid things like "zOMG!!!1 NYCx = transportation center of the wourld!!!!1111 and therfore the center of everything and de best place evrrr!11111111"

This is not a thread to bash New York. It's a thread where ignorant people are making outlandish claims and reasonable people are carefully refuting them.

[K.O.N.Y]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

Right here: "The concept of this thread should have just died, as its ridiculous."

People say New York isn't as important as this or isn't as significant as that because New Yorkers are saying stupid things like "zOMG!!!1 NYCx = transportation center of the wourld!!!!1111 and therfore the center of everything and de best place evrrr!11111111"

This is not a thread to bash New York. It's a thread where ignorant people are making outlandish claims and reasonable people are carefully refuting them.

NYC does have the best transportation in the world. I never said the fact that it did somehow made it the center of transportation. I was arguing with oy who said it was unreliable which isnt true

[PDX_LAX]

Originally Posted by K.O.N.Y

NYC does have the best transportation in the world. I never said the fact that it did somehow made it the center of transportation. I was arguing with oy who said it was unreliable which isnt true

COMPLETELY debatable. Even if it did hypothetically, that wouldn't some how reinforce it being the center of the world.

But I wasn't specifically talking about you anyways.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/9783247-post455.html

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by PDX_LAX

Well relatively speaking, the Roman Empire was most of the known world at the time, which is really what I'm getting at. The ancient Maya and Japanese were so isolated and independent from Rome they were almost in different worlds. But the Roman empire pretty much occupied most of what people new back then as the entire world and Rome ruled as the center of it all. Nothing like New York today.

I understand what you're saying, but this is sort-of a cultural bias of our education system. The population of China, then, was roughly equal to or surpassing the Roman Empire. An outside observer in 200 AD might find the Chinese claim to what is/isn't "the known world" to be just as valid as Rome's. By that perspective Japan is the known world while something like France or England isn't. (The Chinese knew of the Roman Empire, but I don't think they knew anything about regions West of Rome itself. If they knew Rome itself, mostly they were dealing with Syrians and such)

[Thomas R.]

Anywho in an economic sense the center of the world is Southern Scandinavia. While in a population since it's Central Asia near Afghanistan. Well so says the following, possibly Leftish, source.

http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_publica...nglish_368.pdf