Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i will agree that up to a period in time, the US was still influenced by english culture, and i stated that was most likely into the mid 19th century until mass immigration happened. since then, other influences have clearly defined the united states. our city glass/steel architecture, our music, our sports, baseball, basketball, football, our popular culture bears no resemblance to england after the early 20th century. we don't practice anything of british heritage in our culture besides maybe getting drunk.
But there were still a lot of british influences - look at Harvard and yale - entirely modeled on British Universities in both architecture and form originally.
Of course the US took its on path but no other country had more influence, as seen by the remnants in the present form, than Britain. Certainly not the Dutch.
As for baseball - see the "origins of baseball" on Wiki - the relevant England folk games are mentioned right there in the second sentence. The first mention of baseball is 1744 - in England...
Also "American football" is derived from English "Public School" football (which are private schools... the meaning is upside down) which also gave rise to similar games such as rugby.
Sure the US went its own way and became the world superpower, and did most things better far outshining its old mother. But denying the british influence, as to what even hundreds of years later can still be seen here all over, just makes it look like you are anti-British for some reason, rather than a non-partisan observer. Either that or (like your statements about baseball and football) you don't even realize what the influences were.
But there were still a lot of british influences - look at Harvard and yale - entirely modeled on British Universities in both architecture and form originally.
Of course the US took its on path but no other country had more influence, as seen by the remnants in the present form, than Britain. Certainly not the Dutch.
As for baseball - see the "origins of baseball" on Wiki - the relevant England folk games are mentioned right there in the second sentence. The first mention of baseball is 1744 - in England...
Also "American football" is derived from English "Public School" football (which are private schools... the meaning is upside down) which also gave rise to similar games such as rugby.
Sure the US went its own way and became the world superpower, and did most things better far outshining its old mother. But denying the british influence, as to what even hundreds of years later can still be seen here all over, just makes it look like you are anti-British for some reason, rather than a non-partisan observer. Either that or (like your statements about baseball and football) you don't even realize what the influences were.
but those are remnants of the past from hundreds of years ago. we don't build schools like harvard and yale anymore.
if you go to the UK and bring up baseball, they will clearly tell you that it's a dumb sport.
i am certainly not anti-british, i am saying american culture has really no association with british. if anything, the recent british generations have become more american. their pop bands and singers have emulated all our american music styles. if you go back to the 50's and 60's, british artists and musicians like the beatles, the stones, the who, zeppelin, etc were copying elvis, black jazz and blues musicians. they have since made boy bands and their own r&b singers. i think they owe alot to our culture than we do to theirs.
Last edited by HarryHaller73; 07-11-2016 at 10:08 AM..
it's interesting how russia and china retained such large land masses after conflicts and war. i attribute that to consolidating all power into a period of communism. also, russia and china are less multicultural. there is a common nationality within their histories.
the roman and british empires were examples attempting a forced union of multi-culturalism. when the stuff hit the fan, indians really could care less what the british military was doing in germany.
Greek, Roman, Spanish, British empires or any Western European Empire that controlled vast lands and expanded Western culture throughout their domains. One of the things I have noticed is that how Western Euroepan empires like Greece, Rome, Britain, Spain where different from Asian ones. As for why Russia and China maintained so much land? Both China and Russia are defensive civilizations. Russia and China are designed to keep invaders out of their core territories. China and Russia also have shared history. Both China and Russia overthrew their Mongol rulers to form Empires in their own right. As for China and Russia being less Multicultural? China and Russia can easily collapse due to ethnic divisions within their entities. Russia to the east has lots of Siberian, Mongols, Turks who don't see eye to eye Moscow. South Russia is very Islamic. China also does not have cultural affinity within its entities. North China has plenty of Mongols who would love to form a greater Mongolia with Russian Mongols and the country of Mongolia. Western China is very Islamic. Than you have China to the South such as Tibet who would more forth coming to India. Than you have Hong Kong which is more civilized than mainland China. The thing is this, if one treats an subject like crap, expect the subject to rebel.
This happened a lot throughout history. Examples are in Ptolemaic Egypt where the wealthy Greek minority ruled over the Egyptian majority. Constant rebellions would break out against Greek rule. Same could be said for Greek controlled Judea where the Jews did not like high taxes, and forcing the Jews to worship Greek gods and other ruled imposed on them by their Greek rulers in Syria. This lead to the macabee rebellions and chanukah a popular Jewish holiday celebrated in NYC and Israel.
What is great about Communism is that communism eliminates ethnic and cultural division to create a cohesion with people of different cultures.
Russia is still a huge empire, as Moscow still controls many regions not Russia. Rome's prominence today is really because of the Vatican/Catholic church. In that sense the Roman Empire did not go away. The American empire took over from the British after the British Empire was hammered by the Germans and the Japanese.
Roman empire went away in 476 in the West and in 1453 in the eastern portion. What was left of the Roman Empire was the Catholic Church, and Barbarian influenced vulgar Latin dialects such as French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. Last Roman legal system is the most widely used legal system in the world.
in each case, every empire balkanized into many separate nations. if that's the case, you might see the USA one day dividing into sections.
Another way to look at U.S. Balkanization is South Korea, South Vietnam (failed), Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Colombia, Latin America.
But the U.S. will fail somewhat differently, via a catastrophic economic collapse caused (like many others) by fighting imperialist wars it cannot afford.
Nothing short of an apocalyptic disaster will reduce demand for NYC housing.
Even then, some types of disasters wouldn't reduce demand.
Things always continue the way they have...until they DON'T.
Housing has collapsed at least twice in my New York memory
(since 1970) and it didn't happen with a meteoric impact or the Sun going super-nova, no apocalypse needed.
Another way to look at U.S. Balkanization is South Korea, South Vietnam (failed), Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Colombia, Latin America.
But the U.S. will fail somewhat differently, via a catastrophic economic collapse caused (like many others) by fighting imperialist wars it cannot afford.
Colombia isn't balkanized. Don't believe US news media reports of other nations. Latin America as a whole is not balkanized.
The media manipulates the public via FEAR and negative news, which often does not correspond to reality.
Greek, Roman, Spanish, British empires or any Western European Empire that controlled vast lands and expanded Western culture throughout their domains. One of the things I have noticed is that how Western Euroepan empires like Greece, Rome, Britain, Spain where different from Asian ones. As for why Russia and China maintained so much land? Both China and Russia are defensive civilizations. Russia and China are designed to keep invaders out of their core territories. China and Russia also have shared history. Both China and Russia overthrew their Mongol rulers to form Empires in their own right. As for China and Russia being less Multicultural? China and Russia can easily collapse due to ethnic divisions within their entities. Russia to the east has lots of Siberian, Mongols, Turks who don't see eye to eye Moscow. South Russia is very Islamic. China also does not have cultural affinity within its entities. North China has plenty of Mongols who would love to form a greater Mongolia with Russian Mongols and the country of Mongolia. Western China is very Islamic. Than you have China to the South such as Tibet who would more forth coming to India. Than you have Hong Kong which is more civilized than mainland China. The thing is this, if one treats an subject like crap, expect the subject to rebel.
This happened a lot throughout history. Examples are in Ptolemaic Egypt where the wealthy Greek minority ruled over the Egyptian majority. Constant rebellions would break out against Greek rule. Same could be said for Greek controlled Judea where the Jews did not like high taxes, and forcing the Jews to worship Greek gods and other ruled imposed on them by their Greek rulers in Syria. This lead to the macabee rebellions and chanukah a popular Jewish holiday celebrated in NYC and Israel.
What is great about Communism is that communism eliminates ethnic and cultural division to create a cohesion with people of different cultures.
i said china and russia are less multicultural, and that is fact. yes there are other ethnicities at the borders and outskirts, but walk in beijing or shanghai, it's 99.9% homogenous. 81% of russia is ethnically white russian.
tho one can talk about the merits of communism, the bad thing about communism is that communists killed 94 million people, who dissented. i believe this is how china and russia maintained their large land masses in the 20th century.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
