:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"The only thing I know is that I know nothing."
Printable View
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"The only thing I know is that I know nothing."
It`s a lot:)Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
Are you being serious ? You seem to lack a concept of both culture and history.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
We live in a self- regulating system. There are of course many situations where the impact of british culture is seen however , f.ex English has many french loans. English is one of the most popular languages but it`s not the only one.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Given its size, I don't know why Texas joined the union anyway. Of course, the downside to remaining an independent country would have been to have potential enemies on its respective borders. The upside would have been that the US wouldn't have had George W Bush as president.
English dominance internationally lasted about 200 years - dominance as in being markedly the best - and even then it was not always stable. The Chinese economy throughout the Tang occupied 70% of the world Economy - China has consistently had a population larger than all of Europe put together - it still remains larger than all of the "west" put together.Quote:
Originally Posted by hannah_arendt
In the early days of Empire, Asia was uncontrolled. The big players for the Americas were Spanish and Portuguese - at that time also linked to the Austrian throne, as Charles the 5th had major titles throughout Europe as a whole. The dutch in terms of a Merchant empire were almost a century ahead of the British, the biggest difference is they in many places weren't trying to repopulate or depopulate, but merely assert control and make money - but that is another matter.
the British have been drinking Chinese - then later Ceylon Tea - for centuries, using Porcelain just as long, and importing culture for thousands of years. China in contrast got its biggest dumping of cultural influx in 300AD or so, and has been more influential than influenced, relatively speaking. In letters, most definitely so.
In Economic terms China has been rolling ahead of the world for most of recorded history, and certainly from the Han through the Mongol invasion. England is a late player that never really solidified its grip on the world the way China did.
To make this such a cut and paste "easy" argument is to just show a lack of knowledge of any culture but one's own (Mr. Atheist being from the Common Wealth).
70% seems a little high. Weren't India and the Abbasid Caliphate fairly prosperous during that period (600-900CE)?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Two people are culturally dominant figures today, and have been for millenia. They lived within a few hundred miles of each other. Jesus and Mohammed.
Neither was British, although Jesus and his teaching were the single most important influence on British culture at the height of its power, and Mohammed has increasing influence today.
If we are talking 20th century popular music, I think the British are the equals of the Americans: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Clash, The Sex Pistols, David Bowie, Radiohead, The Smiths, Pink Floyd, Joy Division, The Stone Roses...that is a pretty impressive list (actually, to be specific, they are all English). Then again, they are all unthinkable had it not been for America- the blues, jazz, rock and roll etc were born in America. It's odd that the British, who never produced any great classical composers, have been so good at pop music in the 20th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Culture is a tough one. If you are talking classical music then Germany; if you are talking literature then the British Isles (Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales), with France a close second; if you are talking about art generally then the French and Italians take some beating...it's impossible. Some people would say Athenian culture 2,500 years ago has never been surpassed in the intensity of its genius. Then again, what about the spiritual traditions of the East: The Bhagavad Gita, Vedanta, Yoga, Zen, Taoism etc.
The influence of English culture on the modern world has been immense. In fact, if England had never existed, the world of 2013 would be unrecognizable (the Industrial revolution, the empirical/ scientific approach to the world, modern democracy, liberalism etc). If you had to list the 10 most important and influential thinkers/ writers/ humans (disregarding mythic-religious figures like Jesus and Muhammed) who ever lived, a very strong case could be made for placing the following Englishmen on that list: John Locke, Newton, Darwin and Shakespeare. That's pretty impressive given how small England is. James Joyce, no friend of the English, thought the three greatest poets of all time were Englishmen: Shakespeare, Wordsworth and Shelley.
Right now, American culture dominates (though that doesn't mean it's the best). Pretty soon Chinese culture may dominate Asia, and eventually replace the USA as the most influential (already, lots of ambitious parents in the West are teaching their kids Cantonese etc).
I think Americans dominated popular music for the first half of the 20th century (compared to the Brits, at least). Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, the Gershwins, and Richard Rodgers were writing all those classic songs for Broadway. Jazz and the Blues were revolutionizing popular music. From 1960 on, the Brits were in the ascendency.
Russia surely rates a mention with its great 19th century novelists, and it's dominance in classical dance. Nijinski, Pavlova, Nurneyev, Barishnikov, Pliesetskaya, Marakova -- which non-Russians can compare? Maybe Fonteyn. The greatest ballets were also composed by Russians (Tchaicovsky, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, or however one spells their names), and choreographed by Russians. As with Jazz and the Blues, the U.S. chipped to the less classical scene with Bill Robinson, Astaire, and the Nicholas Brothers. What country dominated a major art form to the extent that Russia dominated ballet?
If you look at the linguistic contributions made by the Italian peninsula, at how the Roman Empire was vital to the spread of Christianity, and then at the Renaissance, I'd say Italy is the "greatest culture" of all time in the Western world.
To sum up, everything depends on the point of view we share:)
If we're speaking globally then in addition to China I think India deserves mention. Indian philosophy undoubtably influenced the ancient Greeks. To what extent I am not sure, but if its as great as I sometimes suspect then western religion and philosophy owe India a great debt. Its the land from whence Buddhism sprung. Yoga is all the rage now and that system originated in India. Much new age thought is heavily influenced by Indian sources.
Excuse me, to whom it might concern. I think it's time for LitNet to have a thread called HEALTHCARE, where doctors, nurses, nutrinional experts, assistents, internists, etc. can point out what is known in these fields and help people live well where it counts the most.
Good points, and the same applies to Persia, but I still think that the culture that gave us wine was even. Here's to the Georgians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
It's probably best to talk about specific places at specific times- Athens from c.500BC-350BC; England, especially London, from c. 1580s- 1690s; 18th century France; Paris from 1870-1939...etc. For example, I'd love to go to San Francisco in about 1967 or Paris in 1922 or London in 1600.
Surely you mean Mandarin?Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
Did you see "Midnight in Paris"? That's the plot.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
I thought my post was so obviously humourous that nobody would be silly enough to argue against it, but there you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
You do make some nonsensical points, though.
The population is irrelevant when talking about either culture or economy, and apart from the past decade, China has never had much influence on anyone outside of their direct sphere of influence. The percentage of cultures outside of South-east Asia that embrace more than a touch of Chinese culture is close to zero. Chop suey, anyone?
Drinking tea out of porcelain hardly counts as a major cultural shift, but please do post evidence about the time when China accounted for 70% of the world economy - this I have to see.
Now you're on track, Spanish culture was the obvious one, given South America alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
You still forgot France, though, which did have just a little impact on the dominant culture today - American.
Speaking of knowledge of history, yours must indeed far outweigh mine, since mine totally lacks any knowledge of China dominating the world at any stage of history. In terms of truly dominant, worldwide cultures, you have England, Rome and not much else.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Your view of history is skewed to China for some inexplicable reason, but I'm open to evidence, so please go ahead and back up your points.
Covering the 70% of the world's economy will be an easy one for you, but when you're demonstrating China's "grip on the world" that I missed, please do include how that is possible when they never even crossed the Pacific Ocean, or even Bass Strait.
If you add the blues, jazz, hip-hop and "grunge" greats then I'd say America is close to equalling if not altogether surpassing Britain when it comes to 20th century music.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
Even though they get a lot of hate I'd say the British band Coldplay might have the strongest case for being the greatest band in contemporary popular music.
You have to be more specific with "greatest" when talking about music. there's artistry, there's integrity, there's pop culture, there's influence.
That's why boxing is such an excellent subject for this kind of thing. Everyone knows who The Greatest was.
Culture is pretty subjective.
Actually, there's a great deal of debate on the boxing forum I visit about who the greatest are. Of course, Muhammad Ali was nicknamed The Greatest, and he's generally considered the greatest heavyweight champion of all time, but some people say that title belongs to Joe Louis, and younger people like to say Mike Tyson. In the pound for pound sense, most people agree that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest, though others will say that Henry Armstrong, or Harry Greb deserve that title more. Then there are the moderns who think that everything new is better than everything ancient and propose Roy Jones Jr. or Floyd Mayweather as the best there's ever been.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Do you think that chinese culture is attractive for Europeans or Americans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
China has been influential in India, most of South East Asia, and all of East Asia. It has also been influential in much of Central Asia, all of Northern Asia, and had extensive trade and communication with Persia and Turkey for an extended period of time. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that is somewhere near the bigger part of the world population.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You miss something, that sphere is significantly larger than the rather late-developing Western world, which for most of history was centuries behind China in terms of economic and cultural development, including science and technology. The big shift it would appear began in the 17th or early 18th century when England developed rapidly and Chinese development halted. Until then nobody would ever have considered England important on an historical scale.
You forget yourself. If you wish to speak of exploration, Zhang He made it to Africa far before European exploration - that has been documented extensively. They never crossed the pacific, that is true, but you forget another thing - What was Columbus actually looking for when he set sail? Oh that's right, he was looking for the place where all the fashionable and excellent things came from, namely China.
The Han territory was as extensive as the roman, and the economy and culture as developed, if not more. I personally own at least 3 books on the subject giving direct comparison between both empires, as they generally lasted through similar periods, and peaked at similar times, it is actually interesting to note their similarities.
Your biggest problem seems to be that you cannot realize that the majority of the world's population has historically not been in Europe, and centred more in Asia, which developed faster than Europe for several reasons. The so called dark Ages were about 600 years earlier in arriving to the Sinosphere, and the sort of peak of Chinese traditional culture in terms of international dominance was on the eve of the Mongol invasion, the same cultural event that would lead to the stunting of the growth of the British islands, through the importing of Mongolian plague to England (known as the black death). The renaissance came late to England in part as a result of the stunting of growth accompanying the black death, as well as a culture of warfare, and general submission of the peasants to a brutally ingrained feudal system - of which More would write extensively in Utopia.
None of these arguments are any bit uncommon or unwritten, and have been the common discussions and knowledge of sinologists in Europe since Matteo Ricci, who, though Christian wrote extensively of the superiority of Chinese culture.
That you are ethnocentric and culturally isolated does not excuse you for being ignorant, it only illustrates the point that you are unread in world history.
The Americas in general were undeveloped and rather unpopulated throughout history, as was Europe in comparison to Asia. China has always had a significantly larger economy and population than other cultures, as has been the trend for the past 2000-odd years. The early development of centralization and agriculture in China had led to a system that maximized output - for a nice overview on the subject check Ledderose's Ten Thousand Things, which outlines how the Chinese economy developed into a mass-production machine as early as the Bronze Age (which came relatively late to the area).
As for China not having a direct influence outside of their sphere, how many of Bacon's great advancements of his age didn't come from China? Gutenberg and the printing press, China, Gunpowder and the canon, China, the Compass (which fueled exploration one might add), China. Paper in general was a Chinese invention long before it made it to the west.
I am not trying to advocate a sort of Chinese-centered history, though one could easily read world history with China in the centre, without being far off from a fairly accurate portrait. Yet one cannot help but feel such an argument for English-centered world views is symptomatic of ethnocentric upbringings and general lack of knowledge on anything in world relations and history pre-1700.
Fascinating, JBI. I hadn't made the comparison of the Han Dynasty to the Roman Empire before, but it's staring me in the face now. However, I did a quick internet search and unearthed this article http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...ope-and-china/ comparing their respective economies. At least in that article and in the studies he cites The Roman Empire was slightly more prosperous and there is reason to believe that medieval Europe when considered as a whole would be the near equal of China economically if not technologically. Also, I know that the Chinese invented many things before the West, but I've heard that they were very secretive and often would not share their advances; leading Western countries to re-invent them independently much later. Is there actual evidence that Gutenberg and other inventors had knowledge of the Chinese machines before they reproduced them here? For instance, I think Egypt invented paper on it's own, and that's where the Greeks and other Europeans got it from.
In terms of science, Europe has certainly pulled far ahead in the last 500 years. The scientific method revolutionized European approaches to science, and it was largely due to Bacon's influence on the Royal Society and the emergence of international scientific communities in Europe around such organizations. Of course, a great deal of the success of European scientists during this period can be attributed to the economic success of Europe, but the Enlightenment's quick adoption of methodological science allowed Europe to refine a number of imported technologies in ways they never had before, which combined with an emergent proto-capitalist culture gave them the thrust to take over the world. A history teacher I had back in college, who got her PhD in East Asian history from Cambridge (so sharing JBI's biases probably), said to me once that the only thing Europeans are really better at than the rest of the world is music.
As much as I dislike letting you win this argument for finality, I have to say you are correct. JBI once threw a hook that played well. Since then, he has been a delirium of BS. I would guess he works for some group related to the Chinese government. Obviously forced to consider numbers to try to impress with useless propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
That's an interesting point, Pip. I've found the literature of the East and to be just as good as the West's. The fine art isn't quite as good. There are many fine pieces, but nothing I would compare with the finest works of Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Bernini, Rubens, Praxiteles, or Rembrandt, however much I like Qiu Ying, Kano Sanraku, Abid, Ogata Korin, Utamaro, Purkhu, Sultan Muhammad, Guo Xi, Unkei, and Wang Ximeng. But the music, I've been completely unable to find anything from the East that is anywhere near as good as western classical music. Even StLukesGuild with his fondness for Ravi Shankar will probably back me on this. Chinese opera is no match for Italian opera. Sitars and zithers don't match the piano and nothing I've heard is as good as Mozart's Jupiter Symphony or Vivaldi's Four Seasons. That doesn't mean there isn't anything, but just that I haven't heard it. Perhaps, I've been listening to the wrong instruments or compositions. I'd have a much different idea of western musical traditions if all I'd ever heard were bagpipes, accordions, saxophones, and yodeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Without the influence of Australian aboriginal culture, the Crocodile Dundee movies would not have been possible. Case closed.
But even the best films are inferior art. You might say that America is unequivocally top for popular entertainment, but for "Culture" with a capital C you have to produce better arguments if you want to pitch for yankees. It's interesting that top film critics, with rounded cultural pretensions, often make this argument. Bryan Appleyard is famous for it in the UK, another critic who often points this out is Ronald Bergen:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
http://www.theartsdesk.com/film/opin...test-ever-film
"... if one accepts the fact that the majority of film critics in the world think that Vertigo is the best film ever made, it raises the question of whether film as an art form is perhaps inferior to the other, older, arts. As someone who has made a living of sorts for over 30 years writing about film and teaching film history and film theory, that may seem like sacrilege. But if one were to assess the greatest works in each art in categories like at Crufts, then bring the winner of each category together for the Best in Show, then I’m afraid Vertigo, whatever its many virtues, wouldn’t stand a chance against, say, Don Giovanni, The Divine Comedy, Ulysses, Hamlet or the Ninth Symphony.... is there really a film that can match any of the genuine masterpieces in the other arts?"
All round I think Britain has a good claim for the last hundred years, with writers like Lawrence, Woolf, Huxley, Orwell, Pinter, Larkin, ..., plus composers like Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Britten... And the other major European nations could easily come up with a list to match or better America, I feel. Given the differences in population size, it's perhaps fairest to compare "Europe" with "the Americas", and then victory is obvious... Don't be too sad America, you are a young culture and given a few centuries you might catch up...Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Hitchcock is British, by the way, but film is an inferior art form...
This is *popular* music, not "Culture" with a capital C. There may be some connection between the two, but you need to distinguish. Vaughan Williams is Culture, "the Who" are not, though they are very good "pop".Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
St Luke specified "the last hundred years" and I don't think you can be so sure about Germany for this period... France and Britain have strong claims, and Russia very strong...Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
I don't know anyone who thinks that Vertigo is the greatest film ever. It's not even the greatest British film ever. That is probably David Lean's adaptation of Dr. Zhivago, and that is as great a piece of art as any opera, which is what it should be compared to. Opera and cinema are both combinations of writing, acting, music, and visuals. I'd say that Pulp Fiction, Gone With the Wind, Schindler's List, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Goodfellas, 8 1/2, Wild Strawberries, Seven Samurai, Andrei Rublev, Citizen Kane, and Casablanca count as great examples of art. Cinema is only a century old so it may not have had enough time to produce it's Shakespeare, Mozart, or Michelangelo, but it's done pretty well for all that. Kubrick, Fellini, Bergman, or Kurosawa are probably worth as much to the history of this young art as Monteverdi was to a nascent opera.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
My general impression of Europe is that in the 20th century it became a trash factory, destroying all of it's great traditions, self-inflicting crippling psychic wounds, and systematically dismantling all of the tools it once used to make beautiful art.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
It's a little weird that you'd try to poach the music prize with such feeble offerings as Vaughan Williams, Elgar, and Britten. They are good but hardly iconoclasts. I didn't offer America as a classical music idol just because I didn't think we compared to the Russians with Copland, Ives, Bernstein, and Gershwin.
Well, considering that the popular culture has frequently produced better art than the high culture this last century I feel it's worth including the two in an assessment.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
There's no question that the last 100 years has been the American century as many have called it, for better or worse. But before the fall, I think we have to give the nod to Germany. If you look at rational thought, represented by philosophy, science and literature, you'd have a hard time stacking up to the collective influence of Einstein, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Mann, Freud, among countless others and you have the foundations for the modern mind. Throw in music and you're on a whole other level.
That's why you need to distinguish between the proper noun "The Greatest" which can only be Ali, and the adjective "greatest" applied to boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
It's as subjective as all the others.
No, I don't forget that at all; Europe has never had the majority of population, as anyone who can count will tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Nice of you to completely avoid presenting evidence for your claims, however. Is that an admission that your "facts" were in fact "fantasy"?
Even when you try to present examples of Chinese influence, you come up with a couple of false positives:
Printing and the idea for paper both came to China from Africa. Printing had been old for centuries before China got in on the act. Certainly the Chinese refined manufacture of paper from papyrus to fibres, but I would have expected you to know that the root word for "paper" is "papyrus" and that China - as they still do - picked up someone else's discovery and went with it.
You're also assuming I don't have a good grasp of world history and you would be utterly incorrect. I understand exactly where Chinese influence was and has been, and it has never dominated the world.
At times the Chinese did indeed have as wide an influence as the Roman Empire, but you totally ignore the irrefutable evidence that the Chinese influence did not create a lasting legacy of culture in any way, whereas it is equally obvious that the Roman did.
Except for gunpowder.
Thanks, China.
Instead of worrying about what you think I do and don't know, why don't you attempt to make an actual case for your revisionist historical beliefs? I'm pretty sure I could make a more coherent case for Egypt than China.
That's a widely-held belief, but I can only disagree strongly with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Shakespeare is a good example. His plays are more than the sum of the words, and a good rendition can give a lot more than the bare words, or an inferior production.
Movies are just stage plays done for mass audiences, and the best of them can actually offer more than the story that spawned them.
Mal-4-mac, you need more experience with film. Not even citizen kane is the pinnacle of film. The best directors of the 20th century are just as good artists are the great writers and great composers of the 20th century. Film already has a reputation as a high art. Besides,its been around for little over a century. Its has come a long way for a newer medium.