Real question, is Egypt considered Middle East/Near East? I thought it was considered North Africa and was always confused like why tf would the aliens build the pyramids in Africa if there's no civilization there?
I just found this picture online and you're right, Egypt isn't there, and neither are any North African states, like Carthage and Morocco. I guess whoever made it wanted to highlight other, lesser-known civilizations?
Although I suppose that one could conceivably make the case the Egypt should be grouped more the the Middle East/Near East, as well as the general history of the Mediterranean, due to it's main involvement in history being there, both as an independent state and a subject/client state. I wouldn't make that argument, though.
The map says Sub-Saharan Africa, I'd agree with your interpretation of the intent there - North Africa gets highlighted a lot more in terms of history, in particular because of its involvement with other Mediterranean states (I.e. the European ones)
Harder for people to ascribe racist narratives about who did what for which civilizations when talking about sub-saharan states
North Africa gets highlighted a lot more in terms of history, in particular because of its involvement with other Mediterranean states (I.e. the European ones)
Damning with faint praise. Half the reason I know Carthage even exists stems from the fact that "Rome beat them" is a fact you just get tossed out at you in high school. I wonder if this is how westerners will describe the Soviet Union in another generation or two? "After WW2, America became a superpower and created a global network of trade and did a bunch of wars to liberalize the lesser nations and also they beat the USSR and then Clinton came around and now you have iPhones, you're welcome."
At least there's pretty much no way america is still a superpower in a generation or two, so maybe we'll be like European colonial powers with half the population going "ah remember when we were an empire" and the other half going "uhhh mate we shouldn't have done that" and the new world superpowers get to set the narrative around this era (pls xi)
At least there’s pretty much no way america is still a superpower in a generation or two
Until the US actually balkinizes, it will continue to dominate North America (and the western hemisphere by extension). That makes us a superpower by default, pretty much indefinitely. Our navy's reach into the Pacific and our financial sector's impact on global trade doesn't hurt us, either.
we’ll be like European colonial powers with half the population going “ah remember when we were an empire” and the other half going “uhhh mate we shouldn’t have done that” and the new world superpowers get to set the narrative around this era
Europe could have been a rival superpower, if the EU project had succeeded. That it's cracking up like a modern-day Yugoslavia illustrates a failure of modern capitalism, without a doubt. But I think Germany will still come out as a regional powerhouse in the long term. In another century or two, if it can entrench itself as the center of European financial power, maybe another Bismark will come along and finally unify Europe like Germany itself was assembled from warring principalities.
But the US is unlikely to go that route any time soon, simply because the volume of trade and travel across the states makes balkinization far more economically painful and nationalistically distasteful. Too much power continues to run through DC / NYC and too many local leaders are ultimately just proxies or cronies operating through the political center. Real degradation can't set in until our unifying infrastructure beings to seriously degrade and local powers supplant the national networks. I wouldn't bank on that happening in our lifetime.
Those are all fair points, but imo the inevitable collapse of the US petrodollar will make it happen. Idk how old you are but that's something I definitely think will happen in my lifetime as oil extraction slows and becomes more expensive and other energy sources move to the forefront.
The petrodollar only became a thing because fossil fuels powered the armies of the world. As we migrate to other resource constraints, the power balance will shift. But control of those resources will continue to fix the value of fiat currencies.
The US military is the real currency of the realm. And that's as bloated and globe-spanning as ever.
Let me know when we've lost our first aircraft carrier. That's what will really spell the beginning of the end.
One was scuttled "after being used for a target" (Note: This one (Saratoga iirc) was parked in Bikini Atoll for a hint at what the test was)
One was scuttled to make an artificial reef
...and 13 were destroyed in WWII, the most recent in 1946. Once by a German U-boat, and every other instance was either by the Japanese or other American ships (scuttling after crippled by Japanese so they could claim it wasn't destroyed in combat.)
What you describe is pretty much the deafault formular used in International Relations.
In regards to Eurocentrism, when you take the standards of a superpower and see if they are still relevant against states that hold power and systems of power themselves, it is a wedge in the old term. (Western) Europe was a natural ally and there is no equal successor.
it’s main involvement in history being there, both as an independent state and a subject/client state. I wouldn’t make that argument, though.
I know you're not making this argument, but I disagree with this as well. Medieval Egypt and Nubia were an incredibly imporant destination for African traders and caravans. After the Arab conquest, Islamic Egypt's military was run by subsaharan African slaves soldiers and administrators. It is a shame that many westerners (again, not accusing you lol) try to highlight Egypt's Mediterranean aspects and downplaying/ignoring it's African connections and heritage.
Real question, is Egypt considered Middle East/Near East? I thought it was considered North Africa and was always confused like why tf would the aliens build the pyramids in Africa if there's no civilization there?
:thonk:
I just found this picture online and you're right, Egypt isn't there, and neither are any North African states, like Carthage and Morocco. I guess whoever made it wanted to highlight other, lesser-known civilizations?
Although I suppose that one could conceivably make the case the Egypt should be grouped more the the Middle East/Near East, as well as the general history of the Mediterranean, due to it's main involvement in history being there, both as an independent state and a subject/client state. I wouldn't make that argument, though.
The map says Sub-Saharan Africa, I'd agree with your interpretation of the intent there - North Africa gets highlighted a lot more in terms of history, in particular because of its involvement with other Mediterranean states (I.e. the European ones)
Harder for people to ascribe racist narratives about who did what for which civilizations when talking about sub-saharan states
Damning with faint praise. Half the reason I know Carthage even exists stems from the fact that "Rome beat them" is a fact you just get tossed out at you in high school. I wonder if this is how westerners will describe the Soviet Union in another generation or two? "After WW2, America became a superpower and created a global network of trade and did a bunch of wars to liberalize the lesser nations and also they beat the USSR and then Clinton came around and now you have iPhones, you're welcome."
At least there's pretty much no way america is still a superpower in a generation or two, so maybe we'll be like European colonial powers with half the population going "ah remember when we were an empire" and the other half going "uhhh mate we shouldn't have done that" and the new world superpowers get to set the narrative around this era (pls xi)
Until the US actually balkinizes, it will continue to dominate North America (and the western hemisphere by extension). That makes us a superpower by default, pretty much indefinitely. Our navy's reach into the Pacific and our financial sector's impact on global trade doesn't hurt us, either.
Europe could have been a rival superpower, if the EU project had succeeded. That it's cracking up like a modern-day Yugoslavia illustrates a failure of modern capitalism, without a doubt. But I think Germany will still come out as a regional powerhouse in the long term. In another century or two, if it can entrench itself as the center of European financial power, maybe another Bismark will come along and finally unify Europe like Germany itself was assembled from warring principalities.
But the US is unlikely to go that route any time soon, simply because the volume of trade and travel across the states makes balkinization far more economically painful and nationalistically distasteful. Too much power continues to run through DC / NYC and too many local leaders are ultimately just proxies or cronies operating through the political center. Real degradation can't set in until our unifying infrastructure beings to seriously degrade and local powers supplant the national networks. I wouldn't bank on that happening in our lifetime.
Those are all fair points, but imo the inevitable collapse of the US petrodollar will make it happen. Idk how old you are but that's something I definitely think will happen in my lifetime as oil extraction slows and becomes more expensive and other energy sources move to the forefront.
The petrodollar only became a thing because fossil fuels powered the armies of the world. As we migrate to other resource constraints, the power balance will shift. But control of those resources will continue to fix the value of fiat currencies.
The US military is the real currency of the realm. And that's as bloated and globe-spanning as ever.
Let me know when we've lost our first aircraft carrier. That's what will really spell the beginning of the end.
To be precise, we've lost 16 aircraft carriers.
One was scuttled after being used for a target
One was scuttled "after being used for a target" (Note: This one (Saratoga iirc) was parked in Bikini Atoll for a hint at what the test was)
One was scuttled to make an artificial reef
...and 13 were destroyed in WWII, the most recent in 1946. Once by a German U-boat, and every other instance was either by the Japanese or other American ships (scuttling after crippled by Japanese so they could claim it wasn't destroyed in combat.)
:-p Ok, let me know when we lose our next aircraft carrier.
:rat-salute:
Of course!
The precision here is so that we don't discourage people by making them think these monstrosities are infallible. These fuckers can blow up just like anything else, people just don't like to talk about it.
The US isn't a superpower anymore.
mr america your fired
Wishful thinking.
Sure I listen to a random dude instead of:
scientific marxism
those international relation academics from my university
the people dunking on the US who wihtstand their occupation
If you can't project power and aren't able to force the European core into your wars you aren't a super power.
picks up a book on Scientific Marxism
See, right here. Chapter 9, page 423. The Zizek equation for Superpowerhood. America's dipped below the Omega coefficient, so it's not Super anymore.
How many layers of Eurocentrism are you on, my dude?
What you describe is pretty much the deafault formular used in International Relations.
In regards to Eurocentrism, when you take the standards of a superpower and see if they are still relevant against states that hold power and systems of power themselves, it is a wedge in the old term. (Western) Europe was a natural ally and there is no equal successor.
france is projected to have the largest population and economy in the eu by 2050 because the only country more stagnant than germany is japan
Probably the only reason they made it into Civ, which is the other half the reason most people knew the city existed lol.
for me it was the opposite, it was highlighted how much they kicked Rome's ass in the Second Punic War.
Yep, Carthage, and Phoenicia in general, doesn't get enough press, despite inventing one of the most widespread linear alphabet systems.
I know you're not making this argument, but I disagree with this as well. Medieval Egypt and Nubia were an incredibly imporant destination for African traders and caravans. After the Arab conquest, Islamic Egypt's military was run by subsaharan African slaves soldiers and administrators. It is a shame that many westerners (again, not accusing you lol) try to highlight Egypt's Mediterranean aspects and downplaying/ignoring it's African connections and heritage.