Can we leave the Land Mass Superiority Gibberish behind?

[PARAfel]

I was fond of British Empire, i thought that they have the balls for most of colonial times.

I was wrong, but i thought too that the British are at least the best when it comes to territory, i learned that most of Britain Possesions was dependencies of the crown, So I was wrong.

Too i thought that the British was the champion, the majestic power of man and the english are technically superior, but i was too wrong.

All of British Expectionalism was wrong, soo much as the Britain was only an power that was champion of winning the colonial wars.

Soo, there's soo much gibberish in the internet about the British being the superior because they had more land, But this is really the case?

I dont know much About Britain, but they really scale the ladder and was the superior foe?

That Land Mass Superiority is wrong, they dont say nothing about politics and geopolitics.

Is the USA really that Great Power that all world must submit too?

Ye i was like that guy, The Guy that only saw the Nominalism of an Country being Great but are not very affected by their impact overall

USA really won the Cold War?

Is English really the Lingua Franca?:

Soo what i supposed to ask is how gibberish this speach of Britain and USA being so much Great because of Land Mass Area or impact in geopolitics.

Say about countries that are underrated, that they are making more impact than USA or even China

I am exhausted of this, I think that the way that things happens is more about time and place, not more about the proficiency of an people.

Soo is this really my post, I Know maybe i Am amateur in history studies and this post is like trash, not well developed and only an idea permeating them.

But am tired of thinking about absolute countries, absolute cultures i want to explore my culture (Brazil) and being a major player

Soo it is this...

 

[Yakman]

What are you talking about?

 

[PARAfel]

What are you talking about?

About that thing that the enthusiasts of history make.

They seem like Land Mass is a thing in itself, this means that the more the Land Mass the more the impact overall and it is only about this.

The History Subject is more than that, what i mean is that they have more substance than only about the land mass or economics itself.

You know that France has more prestige and overall was viewed better than UK? You know that India in GDP (PPP) had more power than UK itself?

That's about in the text, tell me what you dont understand and i will see what i can improve at as i am some intermediary in English or at least beginner

 

[Director]

Is the USA really that Great Power that all world must submit too?

USA really won the Cold War?

Is English really the Lingua Franca?:

Soo what i supposed to ask is how gibberish this speach of Britain and USA being so much Great because of Land Mass Area or impact in geopolitics.

Say about countries that are underrated, that they are making more impact than USA or even China

1) No, the US does not require submission. After WW1 we pretty much withdrew from world politics, and after WW2 we did not occupy and treat countries as conquests. Instead, most - including the countries who fought against us - received economic help and a military shield. I won't pretend that US administrations haven't used our economic and military power for bad purposes - guilty. Bur you don't hear us still talking about Manifest Destiny and invading Canada again (looking at you, Russia). If the US required submission, there would be different governments in many nations, including Iran and North Korea. Instead, the US prefers to build trade networks, military alliances and use diplomatic and economic power. Should that fail (or stupidly not be tried) we do have a big stick.

So: does the US misuse its power? Yeah, occasionally people do stupid things. Do we do it constantly? No. Probably the best record for a superpower you're going to get.

2) Yes, the US survived the Cold War with its political and economic institutions intact. The USSR did not.

3) Yes, English is the most common first or second language (I think Spanish and French are second). Britain and the US dominated the economies of most of the planet from roughly 1850 to WW2. The US and western Europe and Japan dominated the economies of the post-WW2 world. English became the language of tourism, air travel, business, radio and television and movies. Many foreign-born children were educated in British and American schools, and speaking good English was a mark of being well-educated. That said, English is an awful language - a mish-mash of every other language with no consistent guide to pronunciation. But it is commonly used.

4) The British Empire and the US were/are not great because they control(led) massive territory. That territory was inhabited, had vast resources and provided enormous markets for goods and services. The USSR was in somewhat the same class, though most of its resources were undiscovered and/or difficult to get to. China is in the same class, not because of territory but because of what the territory contains: people, resources, markets. India has two of the three but not the same depth of natural resources (perhaps). Brazil has a vast territory and lots of resources, with a large but not-wealthy population. Its greatness is still potential.

5) Countries that are underrated but more influential 'than USA or even China'?

Perhaps you could name some? Middle Earth? The Klingon Empire? The Scandinavians, in their own minds, maybe? [ ].

Currently the US is the sole economic and military superpower, and it is a cultural superpower also.
Western Europe could be, if it continues to invest in its military. Economically and culturally it could pass the US.
China is economically strong but brittle (centralized, planned economy laid over limited capitalism) and is rapidly growing its military power; China is now finding that its economic largess has not translated to sustained diplomatic power (IE we took your loans but we don't like you bossing us).
India is economically strong, politically 'mostly' stable, militarily impactful - but does not, despite Bollywood, have the global cultural impact of Japan or the West.
Japan practices quiet diplomacy, is economically powerful and has some global cultural impact.
Russia is committing slow suicide and is no longer economically, militarily or culturally powerful. Diplomatically, its neighbors hate it and no longer fear it.
Brazil is surrounded by different cultures and has struggled to turn its resources into economic power.
A number of African countries are doing well economically (see below) but don't have cultural impact outside their own continent.

The top 11 African countries projected to experience strong economic performance forecast are Niger (11.2%), Senegal (8.2%), Libya (7.9%), Rwanda (7.2%), Cote d’Ivoire (6.8%), Ethiopia (6.7%), Benin (6.4%), Djibouti (6.2%), Tanzania (6.1%), Togo (6%), and Uganda at 6%.

So, current powers are the US, Western Europe, China, India and maybe Japan. There are a lot of regional powers, some of which are quite strong but do not have the population, wealth, military power or cultural heft to move into the front rank.

 

[PARAfel]

1) No, the US does not require submission. After WW1 we pretty much withdrew from world politics, and after WW2 we did not occupy and treat countries as conquests. Instead, most - including the countries who fought against us - received economic help and a military shield. I won't pretend that US administrations haven't used our economic and military power for bad purposes - guilty. Bur you don't hear us still talking about Manifest Destiny and invading Canada again (looking at you, Russia). If the US required submission, there would be different governments in many nations, including Iran and North Korea. Instead, the US prefers to build trade networks, military alliances and use diplomatic and economic power. Should that fail (or stupidly not be tried) we do have a big stick.

So: does the US misuse its power? Yeah, occasionally people do stupid things. Do we do it constantly? No. Probably the best record for a superpower you're going to get.

2) Yes, the US survived the Cold War with its political and economic institutions intact. The USSR did not.

3) Yes, English is the most common first or second language (I think Spanish and French are second). Britain and the US dominated the economies of most of the planet from roughly 1850 to WW2. The US and western Europe and Japan dominated the economies of the post-WW2 world. English became the language of tourism, air travel, business, radio and television and movies. Many foreign-born children were educated in British and American schools, and speaking good English was a mark of being well-educated. That said, English is an awful language - a mish-mash of every other language with no consistent guide to pronunciation. But it is commonly used.

4) The British Empire and the US were/are not great because they control(led) massive territory. That territory was inhabited, had vast resources and provided enormous markets for goods and services. The USSR was in somewhat the same class, though most of its resources were undiscovered and/or difficult to get to. China is in the same class, not because of territory but because of what the territory contains: people, resources, markets. India has two of the three but not the same depth of natural resources (perhaps). Brazil has a vast territory and lots of resources, with a large but not-wealthy population. Its greatness is still potential.

5) Countries that are underrated but more influential 'than USA or even China'?

Perhaps you could name some? Middle Earth? The Klingon Empire? The Scandinavians, in their own minds, maybe? [ ].

Currently the US is the sole economic and military superpower, and it is a cultural superpower also.
Western Europe could be, if it continues to invest in its military. Economically and culturally it could pass the US.
China is economically strong but brittle (centralized, planned economy laid over limited capitalism) and is rapidly growing its military power; China is now finding that its economic largess has not translated to sustained diplomatic power (IE we took your loans but we don't like you bossing us).
India is economically strong, politically 'mostly' stable, militarily impactful - but does not, despite Bollywood, have the global cultural impact of Japan or the West.
Japan practices quiet diplomacy, is economically powerful and has some global cultural impact.
Russia is committing slow suicide and is no longer economically, militarily or culturally powerful. Diplomatically, its neighbors hate it and no longer fear it.
Brazil is surrounded by different cultures and has struggled to turn its resources into economic power.
A number of African countries are doing well economically (see below) but don't have cultural impact outside their own continent.



So, current powers are the US, Western Europe, China, India and maybe Japan. There are a lot of regional powers, some of which are quite strong but do not have the population, wealth, military power or cultural heft to move into the front rank.

a) A little breath to know some limits, instead i consider that USA is not that behemoth that people generally agrees...

I think that we have breachies in the instituitions of USA or of any other world, Like being a Democratic when the Power seems to bent to radical ideas is not the best option, but always we have trade-offs between instituions (i forgot how to spell institution in plural form) and freedom.

In Brazil we have the Judiciary Power having power of legislation, and not overseeing the constituiton. We Live in a Great Law State that the Laws suffocates ourselves, with soo much regulations/taxes, it seem that the future of Brazil is Judiciary Authoritarian Force or Revolution from the people.

The point that i want to make here is that there are things that are not perfect, and okay with that. The US will continue to be an superpower, of course, but for more that i see, the more i saw the US making mistakes.

Tell me if you are understanding my point because besides i saying about an history and making points the text always seem to be to vague and emptyness as i not able to talk very good the English

===========================================================================================================

b) That's the Last Part of the Text

Soo when i talked about overpowerness and if there's a Nation that succeds USA or even China, i was talking about impact overall, and the history.

Of course we can talk about Roman Empire, Germany (The 3 reichs altogether), Angevin Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, Russia and India i was talking about the history of these people, yes you can say that this was an exaggeration for my part, to think that there's countries that have more power or had than China and USA.

I Live in a Underdeveloped Country, so my question is what about the improvement that X is making instead of Y

I Understand this and this post was not to negate that Britain had impacted the world, But really we have to focus on this?

 

[Frank_Costello]

Walking in

. . . .

walking out. have a nice day

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I think alot gets lost in translation here.

 

[PARAfel]

Sorry, Yes i think that i cant talk english normally. But did you understand what i said?

Anyways, This is a topic about me ranting about Land Mass Gibberish and how we get enthusiasm when we see the Most Land Mass Area Countries and thought that for a moment this means that this state controlled the world or that they are superior in every aspect.

I talking about things that really arent between US-China I Guess, Like countries and people that got caught in the myriad of happenings but they leave it an impact, and they are very good in terms of balance of power, trade, military or anything between those.

Is soo about that, i have faith that you understood what i said here