Congress Pug: The US is "the largest, MOST IMPORTANT nation in the history of mankind"

[ecstatic]

I didn't even catch his name (just another arrogant republican) but his statement really struck me. To provide context, he was talking about how on September 11th, terrorists dared to attack us--- "the largest, MOST IMPORTANT nation in the history of mankind."

I love this country, truly, but the Congressman's statements expose a major problem in the thinking of Americans. Number one, we are not the largest nation, nor are we the most important. Get over it! It's thinking like that which allows certain people to sleep soundly at night while entire populations are bombed into oblivion (in our names).

[treestar]

1. I've always wondered why people find it necessary to believe this

And then wonder why "they hate us."

Why does their self esteem require that they be better than everybody else?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. "Better than" is not always synonymous with "important".

While I would agree that from the Congressman's POV, it probably IS synonymous, there is a modicum of truth behind the comments, unwitting as it may be.

[ecstatic]

10. We are important, but are we the most important in the history of mankind?

Hmmm...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Well, I don't think so.

But I think one could make a decent case. I think it's just arrogant to think ANY civilization could be considered that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. It is slightly arrogant.

I mean, historically, ancient Rome, Pax Brittania, the Holy Roman Empire, and others are certainly rather large and important. But arguably, you could certainly make a case to back the Congressman's point. We are the world's only hegemon, and in the modern era, we certainly wield a disproportionate amount of power and influence over every other country in the world. Like I said, it's certainly arrogant, but I don't know if it's entirely off-base.

[treestar]

7. Depends on what important means

At this point, one could make an argument that if the U.S. is important, then Iraq has become more important, or than Iran or North Korea make themselves important by needling the U.S., and that any other country could do it if they wanted to. The modern era is different, too. Having the biggest military doesn't allow us to control the world quite so well as it might have in Roman times.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I think you'd understand it to mean influence, power, and wealth.

No doubt, Iraq is important, but not so much because of its ability to act, but of how it is acted upon.

Without question, any action of the United States has implications for any country it chooses to affect. No other country in the world can say the same.

[liberal N proud]

4. A little self righteousness goes a long way

These people actually have told them selves this for so long they can't think any other way.

They are like a pro wrestler flexing his braun after his steroid injection.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. I think that was Drier

He is an ass. Now Lungren is up. Another arrogant repuke.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Oh, he was just quoting something some Macedonian said back in 330 BC.

(You could say the same using 'Roman' or 'Inca' or 'Nazi' or any other member of a long, gone empire.)

[zbdent]

8. "and if you don't agree, we'll nuke ya!"

[murloc]

11. If the US isnt, then who is?

I ask that not to make a statement, but as an open honest question.

Historically speaking, I think history will show the the US was the most important nation of the 20th century. Its been said that in 10,000 years, the only name that will be remember from the 20th century will be Neil Armstrong and Hitler. The context will be America put Armstrong on the moon and defeated Hitler.

But of ALL MANKIND? I don't think we are there yet. My vote would be Rome.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. The Soviet Union defeated Hitler.

With some help from Britain, Canada, the U.S., French resistance, and so on.

Also, the were the first country in space.

Why Armstrong and not Gagarin?

[murloc]

17. Armstrong vs Gagarin

Well I wasnt the one who made the prediction, but I think its pretty accurate.

Gagarin was first to orbit the Earth, but the larger achievement, that of actually landing on another planetary body was made by Armstrong. For various societal reasons, landing on the moon seems to be the seminal event, not the first orbit.

Already, a scant four decades later and the name Gagarin is only known by those who lived in during the period, are well educated, or have an interest in Space exploration.

Ask any 7 year old who Gagarin and Armstrong are. Likely answer is that they will recognize Armstrong, but not Gagarin.

Sad really, because IMO, Gagarins achievement is certainly on-par with that of Armstrongs.

Proably another factor in this is the adage of "victors write history".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Why?

Why is walking on the moon more important that being the first in space? ... or the first to orbit? ...or the first to land a probe on the moon? ...or the first to land on another planet?


"Sad really, because IMO, Gagarins achievement is certainly on-par with that of Armstrongs. Proably another factor in this is the adage of "victors write history"."

Well then you've got to admit there's a bias in this "most important crap.

[murloc]

25. Thats kind of the magic question

I was a toddler when Armstrong walked on the moon, but a few years later in grade school I remember people were still pretty darn excited about it.

In 2nd grade we did a school play on it, including a "simulated" walking on the moon. It was my job to go out on stage and put the "moon down" so that another kid could walk on it in his tinfoil wrapped "spacesuit"

I don't think we even mentioned Gagarin in that school play, although it may have happened and my memory has faded.

Of course there is bias when people flag things as "most important" or "less important". In fact Id say that anytime you decide that something is important, its essentially an application of bias, whether the bias be personal, party, national or the entire society.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Exactly.

And if you ask a Russian who's your age they'll probably tell you Gagarin was more important.

All of this stuff is subjective and "most important in history" doesn't make any sort of sense.

[slowry]

14. Rome lol... n/t

[murloc]

19. So what do you think the answer is?

I think the Roman Empire is pretty damn significant. Inventing Democracy and all that.

But thats just my amateur opinon.

Since you feel its appropriate to laugh, would you care to delightment us with your opinion?

[slowry]

22. I suppose I find the question a bit silly.

Democracy has its roots much further back than Rome, so suggesting they invented it is a bit off. People voted (well, some men...), but it wasn't like today, where the people really have a say -- oh guhhhh :(.

There should be other considerations, besides the political structure, if we were really trying to find the "best" nation. Law, human rights, longevity, intellectual pursuits -- compiling the criteria alone would require a massive amount of time, and there would of course be conflicting opinions on what "best" means.

So that's why I laughed -- not at you, certainly. The whole idea is almost useless, except for propaganda purposes, in my opinion.

[WinkyDink]

15. We are "important" because we have the most weapons---and are the only

nation ever to have nuked (atomic'ed?) another.

I.e., we're the bully.

[porphyrian]

16. I think they've answered the question "Why do they hate us?" - n/t

[DS1]

18. Tis but a child of the United Kingdom

The sun never sets on the British Empire

:P

[mmonk]

20. Isn't Canada larger?

[marmar]

21. That's what they said in ancient Rome....

Stupditity + Arrongance = Today's Republican Party :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[onethatcares]

24. we're right up there with Rome

and Attilla the Hun.