Why is the US so powerful?

by Seán Ryan Wed Feb 08, 2006 21:19

Your opinion rings of familiarity.

I have heard what it ammounts to many times in my life.

It reminds me of a proud mother looking at her son proudly marching, with the rest of the kids in a marching band and her proud assertation that it is the rest of the kids who are not marching in step irregardless to the fact that they are all in step with each other.

Capitalism?

Democracy?

They be incompatible.

As to being the 'greatest,' where science is concerned, total rubbish. Besides America is famous for stealing the scientists and artists from other cultures. And then patenting the thoughts that come to them.

I'll give you one thing.

The lure of the dollar is as powerful as the siren's call.

The fact being, that she's been singing the same shit forever and that it's time to change the record.

Mediocrity and banality are not substitutes for greatness.

Sláinte,
Seán Ryan

by Paul Baynes Wed Feb 08, 2006 22:06

Thanks for the thoughts Yompy -

I agree with a lot of your perspective, but there's a few things I have to take issue with... The thing to remember is that there are lots of different currents within the US.

As you acknowledge in your article, there are many currents within the US that do not agree with a lot of US foregn policy - Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan etc. So, while I agree with a lot of what you write in your article, I have to disagree with you when you say that "America is certainly evil".

It is important to differentiate between the different component parts of any nation. When George Bush addresses his country and talks about his vision of America, you can be sure a great many American people's stomachs are churning. I think that one way to tackle the problem of US domination - that you articulately illustrate - is by exposing the pluralistic reality of US culture. It is only by linking up different transnational and trans-cultural movements that we can present any kind of effective challenge to US hegemony. For example, to create links between progressive movements in the US and the Middle East.

Anti-Americanism is a dead end, and while we do have to "defeat them", as you say, we have to be very careful to identify who 'they' are.

'They' do not equal America as a whole.

For example, though the US is the main environmental destroyer on the planet, a great amount of the information that tells us this comes from research by US scientists.

A more powerful China (which will certainly become a reality in the future) will certainly be a challenge to US power, but will this improve the world situation? Will human rights still be lashed out of it by both the US and China? Of course they will. A more powerful China and India would certainly curtail US actions, but that would not be the solution I'm looking for.

I'm more ambitious than that, and I'd prefer to envisage a happy fluffly time under a whole new global system... (I'm holding my breath, too...)

by Yompy Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:58

"I'm more ambitious than that, and I'd prefer to envisage a happy fluffly time under a whole new global system"

If you want an alternative you would have to outdo political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate.

My very point is that capitalism by its very nature trives when ordinary citizens have political freedom and democracy and act rationally individually.
If a government allows open debate naturally individuals will assert their freedom to interact economically - the very essence of capitalism.

Communism, Facism, Imperialism, Theocracy, Oilgrachy, One man rule and anarchism at least one if not all of the values that the American system is guided by - they all have failed or else have lasted but have led to economic stagnation or political and military decline.
America suffered defeat in Vietnam but in the long run its political and economic power increased enormously. The Soviet Army had more tanks, missiles, submarines, soldiers etc than the US but it coulde not sustain nor continously modernise its infrastructure indefinitely because it did not have self sustaining capitialist system.

China meanwhile since it has begun to adopt capitalism has experience unprecedented economic growth and is gradually begining to challenge the economic dominance of the US.
Just as the US outstripped the performance of the British Empire eventually the China by apeing the American model will challenge its power.

by A10 Thu Feb 09, 2006 13:24

The greatest enviromental destroyer on the planet is the US. ROTFLAMO!!!!!
Ever hear of Chinas booming economy??It produces now more poulltants than the US.Is destroying more land than the US in building huge hydro electric dams.
On that point China whilst a communist country ,that is playing with capitalism is heading to becoming a capitalist country.To keep the power of rule it is ceeding the people more rights to be capitalist,and losing its power to rule as a communist govt.
As for Seans comment on the US stealing scientists etc.Total jealous nonsense.

Most scientists ,artists,etc left their home countries due to either persecution,intolerance of their ideas or financial necessity,or because there were likeminded people in the US.Not just because of the siren song of the Dollar.
Examples

Albert Einstein fled Nazi persecution.Worked for the US navy.
Marlane Dietrich left because sound disagreement with nazi policies.
John Phillip Holland,born in Clare,developed the first workable submarine,tried to sell it to the British admilitary,laughed out of it,moved to the US and developed the first submarine with finance from the Irish Republican Brotherhood in New York.
Not to mind their own home grown crop of scientists. Edison,Westinghouse,Firestone,Wright brothers,Bill Gates,etc etc ad infiteium .
it is the one thing that makes it the most marvellous country on this planet.you have any sort of crack pot idea,religion,political outlook.You can pretty much sell it,say it practise it.Why is it that anyone escaping from the latest Muslim or Communist Hell all want to go and try to get into America??I will be the first to admit it is certainly not perfect,[top heavy with beuraccy for one].But it certainly is better than most others.It is also one reason it is reviled so much worldwide by dictatorships, is because of the total amount of personal freedoms it bestows on an individual.[Unfortuneatly somthing most Americans take for granted nowadays].

by Coillte, and proud of it! Thu Feb 09, 2006 14:00

Hi! Interesting stuff, but what is the bottom line? What is the effect on the Balance Sheet of life? Democracies do not fight one another, so Bush believes. But what he appears ignorant off is that Demo cracies do not need to be physically attacked, they just self destruct!

Colm Kenna, Public Affairs Correspondent in the Irish Times had a very interesting table of the 10 “most free” of the world economies published annually by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal on the 5th January 2006. I subsequently looked up the fertility rates of the same states, estimated for 2005, as taken from The World Fact Book, compiled by the CIA! They range from 0.91 for Hong Kong which headed the list to 2.08 for the United States which was ranked joint bottom in the list. The world’s population is increasing; yet the “most free” countries have what appears to be an irreversible decreasing fertility rate below the recognised replacement rate of 2.10. All the countries on the list were Democracies that don’t go to war with each other!

An interesting observation is that many of the countries in the table i.e. United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand had massive immigration throughout the twentieth century; yet it was not enough to stabilise the fertility rate. The flip side is that these countries will together over a short space of time have to manage the security, caring, and funding problems associated with disproportionate old aged and wealthy populations.

Ireland’s current economic policies will insure that our fertility rate (currently 1.8,) will continue to fall and the odds are that we will eventually head the “most free” table from the current position of 5th. There are close to 250,000 less in the under 20 years of age bracket in Ireland today than in the early 80s. Could “most easily plundered” be substituted for “most free”? A clue could be gained from watching what the aggressive owners of wealth do. They head for countries that have a free exploitable young population. Maybe the excitement over the aging footballer, Roy Keane could be construed as a metaphor as to what we will expect of our elderly in the future! The ignorant bliss of it all, in a so called knowledge based society is hard to comprehend! You can discuss all sorts of views but without seeing the ultimate bottom line, it is all pie in the sky! The USA have not enough men of fighting age; it appears that terrorists are out to strangle the States by limiting the supply of oil. The friends of the US, including the Irish, will be called to defend and protect oil fields and pipelines. It is as sure as night follows day that a society that allows its birth-rate to constantly fall will fail! This was also the downfall of the experiment with Communism in the USSR etc. There are now so many elderly in Russia that the average lifespan is now under 60 years. The age group that knew better have been annihilated in the various purges throughout the 20th Century in Russia and appear to have passed away in the EU. May they all Rest in Peace! There are some of this generation still alive in Ireland, but total ignorance as to what is happening to our society in the midst of so many world examples is mind boggling. When wealth rises, it blinds you and we appear to be no different to any other society through out the known history of mankind. All academic discussion amounts to nothing if we allow pleasures of the body totally dominate our existence. Get the drift! Now, get ready to take your gun and go and protect the flow of oil in places like Nigeria, around the Caspian Sea etc. Yes, Iran will get the bomb, but it will be us that will use it. This after all was the cause of the war in the Balkans, one side got afraid that the other side were having too many children, and libraries were burnt to the ground!

by Yompy Thu Feb 09, 2006 15:19

It is true that if China follows the American model that there will be much more pollution and environmental damage.
But remember the value of rationalism?
The environmentalist movement is so strong because scientific discoveries which were only possible due to capitalist investment in education has shown that the fossil fuels which are used in industry and by ordinary citizens are destroying the planet.
But the American system if it does not adapt will forced to by cold reality - the survival of their way of life will depend on alternative sources of fuel.
When the forests of Europe were depleted the world turned to the coal as an effecient source of fuel and coal was in turn replaced by oil as a major source of fuel. Where once our cities were submerged beneath dark clouds of coal smoke now we have cleaner more fuel efficient engines which still pollute by increasingly as science advances im sure one day hopefully not too soon there will be engines with minimal emissions to damage the environment.
Much of the earths pollution is caused by industry but a great portion is also caused by the burning of wood by noncapitalist societies who have impoverished themselves by not adopting the same values as the american model which has produced such wealth and therefore research into better fuels such as oil.
I think the future is in hydrogen fuels or geotermal energy or cold nuclear fusion or some other form of energy that market demands science to discover.
As China becomes more advanced and efficient it will see the advantage to its future development in environmentally friendly industrial processes.
Each sphere of economic power rivals each other. when one advances the rival tries to do one better.

The second point relates to whether Western societies have the man power to continue to fight in the future? The whole history of warfare should tell you that that there is a correlation between the increasing efficency and firepower of weapons and the number of men needed to fight.
In Fallujah several hundreds of highly trained US marines clad in kevlar and armed with modern automatic weapons supported by jet fighters helicopter gunships and heavy artillery defeated a numerically superior force of Islamic fighters numbering in the thousands who were armed with small arms of inferior quality were poorly trained in infantry tactics but believed themselves invincible because of their commitment to jihad.
The Fallujah stronghold was crushed in November 2004 by the superior weaponry training and ethos of the US Marine Corps. The mass of jihadists were easily scattered and the fight quickly became a mop up of small bands of fighters because the enemy moral was focused on individual martyrdom in battle not a sustained fight as a cohesive combat unit which would survive the pitched battle. The Marines sustained terrible casualities but the casualty rate of the jihaists was enormous and they were forced to withdraw from the battlefield in disorder.
Fallujah was foolishly given back to jihadists not because they managed to militarily defeat the Marines but only when they withdrew of their own accord. Even when the Marines withdrew did the jihadists dare return in dribs and drabs.

Similarly while there are a few thousand of high trained high motivated and superbly equiped soldiers in NATO armies back by nuclear weapons a numerically superior force which does not share the same values of political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate will be able to win a few battles but never acheive victory in war.

From a great distance America can at will literally blast nations off the face of the earth if it so wishes.
The Soviet Union was capable of the same for a brief time only because it adopted some of its values but did not adopt the values of capitalism, individualism or open debate.
The American war machine is maintained because it has the capitalist system which allows weapons manufacturers to compete with each for government contracts with better and ever more superior weaponry, individualism which allows individual commanders on the ground to make command decisions with out the need to get the approval of a central committee and open debate among the troops who can complain to their open media about battlefield conditions with the potential to cause damage to their political leaders e.g. a soldiers openly challenged Rumsfeld about the inferior armor on their humvees while during the Vietnam War complaints about the jamming of the M16 rifle during firefights gave rise to a Congressional inquiry. A North Korean soldier meanwhile would face death in one of KimJong Il's concentration camps if he dared complain about the quality of his food.

by barra Fri Feb 10, 2006 19:47 aranu21 at hotmail dot com

“Values such as political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate form an especially lethal combination when applied to warfare.”

The above quote is typical of the mainstream media’s double speak, but thanks to the direct democracy approach of this website more holes than a dead victim of a cluster bomb should be shoot in to this dim witted conclusion.

If there is such political freedom, why has the left been completely crushed in every way, be it, black block rooted out or anti war movement in pieces.

Democracy, only about 22% of electorate voted for Bush (bushit). Their system is a dictatorship, absolute power of the owning class (voted in by people who think the world is a few thousand years old). It’s a mockery of the oxford dictionary definition to call it democracy (double speak)

Rationalism (?)
Acting rational in a lunatic doctrine… Noam Chomsky

Where does personal freedom or open debate fit in to the
equation of WAR.

I’m not going to waste any more of my time committing on this mickey mouse thought out article

by Yompy Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:29

"The above quote is typical of the mainstream media’s double speak, but thanks to the direct democracy approach of this website more holes than a dead victim of a cluster bomb should be shoot in to this dim witted conclusion."

When you criticise something you must also have supporting material of some kind to demonstrate your point. I would be interested if you would be more specific.

"If there is such political freedom, why has the left been completely crushed in every way, be it, black block rooted out or anti war movement in pieces."

The anti-war movement is a movement not a ideologically coherent cohesive political party rather a vast number of groupings with diverse motives, opinions, ideas and agendas. Its only unifying principle is the opposition to the war in Iraq but it is deeply divided on what solutions, alternatives or otherwise are available and has no clear leadership of any kind. The left has been "completely crushed" because the rest of the people in the world are adults with children, mortgages, pension payments, household bills, taxes, fuel expenses, medical payments, social lives and sex lives. They are too busy and too preoccupied with their own day to day existence to be involved in direct democracy. Democracy, only about 22% of electorate voted for Bush (bushit). Their system is a dictatorship, absolute power of the owning class (voted in by people who think the world is a few thousand years old). It’s a mockery of the oxford dictionary definition to call it democracy (double speak)

"Rationalism (?)
Acting rational in a lunatic doctrine… Noam Chomsky"

That's why Chomsky is not President of the United States.

"Where does personal freedom or open debate fit in to the
equation of WAR."

In democracies people are more likely to be convinced that the necessity of war is to protect their personal freedom and open debate - whether war does actually protect freedom and open debate is another matter. But you have to admit that linking personal freedom and open debate with the morality of war has been very effective in getting the support of the population of the US especially post 9/11

"I’m not going to waste any more of my time committing on this mickey mouse thought out article"

Tell me where are my views mickey mouse? Again develope your argument?
You have not offered a single counter argument and then expect me to respect your ab hominum attacks?

You are a child.

by barra Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:24

You mean they are too preoccupied with their own day to day existence to be preoccupied with their own day to day existence.

"Rationalism (?)
Acting rational in a lunatic doctrine… Noam Chomsky"

That's why Chomsky is not President of the United States.

You are indeed in the advanced stages of indoctrination

by Yompy Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:56

"You mean they are too preoccupied with their own day to day existence to be preoccupied with their own day to day existence"

Precisely.

Its hard enough living without thinking about how your life could be better.
Ever heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

You should read Schiller - he had high minded ideals about how we live a physicial life but if we were only reeducated aesthetically we would achieve a higher consciousness e.g. instead of obeying the laws because we are fearful of punishment we should instead understand the spirit of the law. If you are frightened of imprisonment for stealing that has not taught you that stealing is wrong it has just taught you not to get taught. However if you come to realise that stealing form another person harms them and that you and that other person could easily have your roles reversed then you will have a higher realisation of why stealing is wrong.
It is hard enough getting educated finding a job and making your wages go further before you start talking about how your labour within the capitalist system leads to alienation.

The left has little influence over mainstream politics because it is so frustratingly abstract.
Mainstream political parties talk about mainstram issues - such as interest rates, taxes, infrastructure, sewage schemes etc etc. because people write to their local and national politicians complaining about all of these things and political parties compete with eachother for their votes by addressing these issues - their manifestos do not talk about the establishment of a dicatatorship of the proletariat or an anarchist utopian future or how the revolution starts here - they talk about what they are going to do about building the next bypass or how many hospital beds are available or how to curb juvenile delinquency or other banal everyday things that radical leftists simply do not pay attention to.

In America the Democrats and Republicans have their fingers firmly on the pulse of the people.
That is why they are in power and Noam Chomsky is not.
The Democrats and Republicans strategically plan their political programs based on cold reality.
Fringe left wing parties don't.

by Hilaal Sat Feb 11, 2006 23:36

America is NOT so powerful. It is teetering on the brink of another crash. The crash of September 2001 when the beast was well and truly kicked in the teeth has only been delayed by Alan Greenspans trickery and a global fiddling of the books to delay the inevitable crash due to losing trillions of dollars and global credibility as the worlds No. 1 Superpower.

They have been having a "housing boom" like our own to transfer equity into property from businesses that have failed. But they are only delaying the inevitable and with their blood, both physical and economic, being bled into the deserts of Iraq and Afghanstan it will not be long.

Economic faith in the almighty dollar is falterig and the word is in Saudi Arabia that it will not be long before crude oil and much else is traded in Euros and not Dollars.

America is a failed experiment. But what of Israel when the Great Beast is not there to suckle its criminal existence?

by rooster Mon Feb 13, 2006 00:22

China and India present the best hope to combat the evil of American power. They have begun to shed the backward systems of communism and isolation and Hindu feudalism that have restricted their potential to dominate the world.
America has a puny population in comparison to these waking giants.

Theres a couple of problems with these two comments:
- for a start the US population is in no way "puny" in fact its a third of a billion, in fact coming from a ROI site that has gotta be a bit of a joke!
- China and India for the last quarter of a century have been adopting american economic policies!!!

by bimini0 Thu Jun 17, 2010 05:21

I have to agree with some of the points above butmight take a few diverging points of view. America is what it is. It became what it is by hard work, creative thinking and a push to evolve. Ok soem would sa they have devolved in some ways. Yet we cannot assume that they did all thngs wrong.
They certainly did things without the same narrow focus as say Germany or other great powers. America seems to do thier own thing withu much regard to harm others.
Yes, they get into wars. Yet I would try to imagine the world leader eing Saudi Arabia and my head woul spin with what our lives would be like.
Thank god america was fairly mild in the last 100 yrs in terms of use of power. I would not trust Russia or old Germany with the power America has.
Lets just ramble for a moment..if you will.
Yes, I know most readers will say they are arrogant. Well lets looks at it? Compared to who? Most Americans actualy are very mild mannered, and not willing to be arragant in public. Ok they act rather childish in some cases with their military. We all know what a GI from yhe army acts like in stupid say a German bar. But that is not America. True Americans act quite reserved. They are not power hungry people. They simply get up in the morning and d not think too much. We Europeans are simply obesessed with how Americans act, think, and plan their lives. It is much to do about nothing. Americans have one advantage in their culture we Europeans do not have. The can relax and ge on with things. We tend to think about things. We call them stupid and shallow. That is just so we can feel good about ourselves. When in fact we are jelous at their ability to block out all the stupid intellectual messy ness ..if you will. For example, lets use this analogy.. they simply go to the store and get food. If they do not get the righ food they want they find it. If they do not find it , they make it, or start a company that makes it. We sit around and talk about what food we cannot get day after day after day.
Point being is that their culture is not about nationalism.It is about simple people who getup each day and just do what they want to or feel they can do. Not talk about it. In mass they make for a powerful yet simple culture. It is not a bad thing to be slightly stupid as a culture. That means your culture might rate very high on creativity. On emustbe impressed with thier ability to create. I ma so facinated when they take junk an make it worth something. They are very good at delivering on an idea because they simply block out the needless thoughts. They focus. That is why they succeed at war. Not a great thing. Just a fact. They can fight better becuase they can block out things and look at an enemy in his eyes. But not get to worked up. In fact terrosist are very frightened of Americans in the military. Not for the weapons. But because Americans can block out things that are not needed. They are quite ok with sleeping in dog holes and sneaking up on terrorists. we Europeans are different. We feel smarter and more evolved. But are we? I think not. They just focusm we do not.
Lets call it what it is. they are from Europe. They used our ideas and eveloved them into their own version of Europe. The are less Fragmented in thinking. They focus and think slightly more in front front of the ball instead of behind them. They relax under pressure. They are sophomoric, yes. Advanced in some ways and not others. Good people yes. A pain yes at times. Yet I wonder are we Europeans a pain also. We European can be very much a burden on the world also.

It is simply a very powerful country doing what powerful countries do. They protect their means and access to sustain their life. Once they meet that goal they seek no more. I find the American ideals to be fairly void of wanting to take over the world. They simply have a lot of power and need to be the big daddy father like figure that they are.When you run the bigges business in your city you have obligations. Wel they run the biggest business in the world.
I get sick of the same old intellectuals in bars and pubs across Europe who know little about America as it is. They read a bit and then boast in a pub that they know America. Its not true. They do not know the real America. Small towns and places with charming people and open minds is never on their list of things they know about. 100s millions of them who are charming people.
What does it all mean? You be your own guest on the next thoughts?

by Astronomer. Fri Jun 18, 2010 17:37

Why is America so powerful ?
The answer can be summed up in one word: "Science".

Unending Scientific inquiry has given the US a vast industrial and military edge.

If you do not believe me perhaps you might take a look at this youtube video of an American spacecraft hurrying out to the edge of the Solar System right now.

It is called "New Horizons".

It is the fastest spacecraft ever built.
It will reach Pluto in just 5 years time.In 2015

Take a look to get an inkling about why the US is so far ahead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a9UnZeBExo
.
You will never hear about New Horizons it on RTE radio or television of course.
RTE is too busy reporting politics and the arts....and little else.

by Emma RAR - None Fri Jun 18, 2010 21:01

Astronomer grant it I see your point but USA spend more on military than they do on New Horizons as much as I love physics and astronomy I think you have to separate the two from politics and the USA military machine unless you want to do a study on physics of society - USA spend more than the next 20 countries combined on military, the use is to oppress and gain power and money I hardly think New Horizons has the same mission unless of course there are some Afghan like Aliens hiding out with Bin Laden in Kuiper Belt.

by Astronomer. Fri Jun 18, 2010 21:41

"Astronomer grant it I see your point but USA spend more on military than they do on New Horizons as much as I love physics and astronomy I think you have to separate the two from politics and the USA military machine."

You cannot separate machinery from politics.

In the wonderful film "2001 a Space Oddyssey" an Ape Man picks up a large bone.
This is the very first piece of technology.
The Ape Man clobbered a few animals first with this new marvel.

Then he proceeded to use this new tecnology to master the animal kingdom...and the human kingdom.

In exultation the Ape Man flings the bone high in the air.

Fast forward 3 million years.

Stanley Kubrick transforms the spinning bone into a spinning spacecraft.

The human raises up the first Technology into the air.
Technology raises up the human into space.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jun 21, 2010 15:02

But in the process seems to be destroying our foundation of material existence on the earth.As for science as the maker of America great.
OK if you add that it manifested as the repeater Winchester outshooting the bow and arrow. But is that not just a more refined savagery, rather than a greater civilisation?And should they not be thanking China for inventing gunpowder?
The nation state is a recent adaptation of primitive tribalism, by studying it we may eventually transcend it.Science is a two edged sword, if we do not control it, and ourselves, towards inclusive sustainable ends its power will destroy the laboratory as surely as it did the sorcerer's apprentice.
Our problem seems to be a tendency to to exclude and heresify(had to invent that one, neccesity) those who dream up fresh equations that mar the elegance of our agreeable formulae.The scientist often forgets his certainties are based on presumptions dictated by his sense organs translation of electro-chemical signals into approximations as to the actual constitution of his(her) locus in space/time.Even though Descart spotted and flagged the danger a whileen back.M.C. Skwared, Eh?

by Engineer. Mon Jun 21, 2010 22:30

"OK if you add that it manifested as the repeater Winchester outshooting the bow and arrow."

Not the Winchester rifle Opus.

Silicon Valley.
.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:38

If there was no Winchester, Silicon Valley would still be Beaver Creek. Then there is the Winchester drive (or disk) from Silicon V. which is so called because its designation number corresponded with the rifle's calibre. But my point was that it was high tech weaponry put the land under the European colonisers and reinforced their conviction of superiority. No land grab, no modern US empire.But that was built on the Chinese compass and gunpowder.And Columbus being Genoan was probably fattened on pasta, another one brought back by Marco Polo.And his charts, if printed on paper also owed that material to China who passed it to Europe through the Arabs in the eight century. Our culture is primitive without the shoulders of Chinese science going back millennia. The white man is reluctant to admit where his wealth originates.Often the way with the nouveau.It interferes with the imperial project of dehumanising the owners of what we wish to claim in the name of our 'higher' civilisation. The current recipients of this condescension are the Arabs, particularly at the spearpoint of Palestine.After all, the oil belongs to US.

by Engineer. Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:36

I remember the Winchester Disk Drive with fondness Opus.
I repaired a lot of them in the 80s.
One had 80 megabytes capacity.
Gigantic at the time.

It is not true that educated Europeans dismiss the contribution of other cultures.

BBC Radio 4 are running a wonderful program right now: "A history of the World on 100 Objects".
(The objects are in the British Museum.)

It is not Euro-centric at all.

You can listen to all of the episodes here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/Wx-OE7v...lOpuw
.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:38

You added the qualifying adjective.I was referring to the topic (Why is the US so powerful?).The imperial mentalities that drive power are will rather than intelligence driven.BBC do sterling work(with blindspots) including the history you refer to.Columbus was driven by personal and dynastic family ambition, the search for gold and slaves and lordship of the new world for himself, his brothers, sons etc. laced with a shot of religious zeal for the salvation of the heathen, who though technologiocally 'primitive' had a quite advanced social civilisation, again with qualifications for the human sacrafices and superstitions.But then homo Europus in the US still sacrafices its weakest in its barbaric electric chairs, chemical exits, and most recently by firing squad, in primitive bids to maintain their sacred social order with sophisticated technologies never dreamed of by the Carib or Aztec with his more mercifully sharp blade.Those 'educated Europeans' always existed from the beginnings of the Spanish/European explorations, but reading the history indicates they were always a minority.And often intimidated into silence by such instruments as the Inquisition(now manifest as the Guantonamo/Bagram/ Abu Graib archipelago).With which us saints n scholars comply through Shannon rendition collaboration.I defer to your technological advantage, but think you have misread my point.