Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Sorry just can't see myself or anyone else looking at me as silly
Don't speak for the rest of us.
The name of the thread is ''Most important city in history''.
There are so many more important cities than Boston, that wouldn't even make the list of the most important cities in history.
Originally posted by inimalist
With the sheer exception that, even as super-power empires go, America has the greatest communications reach than any power in historyNew York has a cultural influence on the planet that has not been met in history.
That's really irrelevant, as technology is a function of time. Go back 500 years and current day France would dance circles around the Ottoman, Hapsburg, and British Empires combined. Again, US has attained, maintained, and defended super-power status for fewer than 80 years. This is just getting boggling when you consider the 2500+ availalbe history that anyone would deem anything US has done as most important. Extremely significant? Obviously.
But just because it's contemporary doesn't mean it's the most significant.
And I know about NYC. I have lived here all my life.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
And historical ny's really mostly just long island which in no way dwarves boston when it comes to politics. Hell Massachusetts, which has Boston as it's capitol, has churned out more U.S. Presidents than n.y. has.
This is false...historical NYC is downtown manhattan, which is where New Amsterdam's nucleus was.
NYC was the first national capital of the United States. The Congress of the United States had its first session here in NYC. George Washington was inaugurated here, meaning the first president of the U.S. was proclaimed as president in downtown manhattan.
And on the other side of the coin, Boston has "churned out" more terrorists through its inadequate security protocols.
Originally posted by Tenebrous
That's really irrelevant, as technology is a function of time. Go back 500 years and current day France would dance circles around the Ottoman, Hapsburg, and British Empires combined. Again, US has attained, maintained, and defended super-power status for fewer than 80 years. This is just getting boggling when you consider the 2500+ availalbe history that anyone would deem anything US has done as most important. Extremely significant? Obviously.But just because it's contemporary doesn't mean it's the most significant.
And I know about NYC. I have lived here all my life.
I don't think anything I have said contradicts what you have said
it is all about how you weigh any variable
also, something being recent does not diminish its significance
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think anything I have said contradicts what you have saidit is all about how you weigh any variable
also, something being recent does not diminish its significance
It only does so if the measure of time has not been allowed to taker its effect on it. However, that does nothing to strengthen the claim of this person; much less weaken yours.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
American cities are null. We haven't proven ourselves with anything that would make so much difference. Geez, even our laws are based upon Europe.Unless you're really like cowboys, then we are not all that special
To get to the heart of your point, even if you were 300 years old doesn'r make you that special.
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
Washington dc (district of columbia)..it is its own country..literally..
Good thing you spelled it out for the rest of us who are far less intelectual than you. While the Distract is subject to other regulations than another true state, doesn't mean those rules are any less absurd.
Originally posted by Tenebrous
It also does not mean it is the most significant...which is the purpose of the discussion...
It's easy to assume the path of the conversation when you also assume it's supposed to boulster one's own perspective.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
It's easy to assume the path of the conversation when you also assume it's supposed to boulster one's own perspective.
No. There is no assumption of discussion. The topic is already displayed for you "Most Important City in History" there is no room for misinterpretation, nor assumption. One person contends Boston. Others contend NYC. I contend neither, due to whatever influences exterted by each are at most fewer than 200 years. In NYCs case, less than a century. You are free to take up your own interpretation, as I have not seen one yet.
One only needs to "bolster" their perspective if they have any doubt. I have absolutely no doubt on my stance pertaining to the discussion. Unless any of you have lived in NYC for their entire lives, I implicitly have a greater familiarity of its place in the US. Most contentions for important cities in the US involve NYC. I disagree with including Boston because successful execution of the ideas generated in Boston were highly contingent on French involvement. You cannot be titled "most important" if the very influence you exert is contingent on a third party.
Offer your point of view, and we can discuss. Otherwise, your post had no substance aside from patronizing rhetoric.
Originally posted by Tenebrous
This is false...historical NYC is downtown manhattan, which is where New Amsterdam's nucleus was.NYC was the first national capital of the United States. The Congress of the United States had its first session here in NYC. George Washington was inaugurated here, meaning the first president of the U.S. was proclaimed as president in downtown manhattan.
And on the other side of the coin, Boston has "churned out" more terrorists through its inadequate security protocols.
my bad. my mistake. you're right. I meant to write historical ny is mainly/mostly manhattan island not long island. I get the 2 mixed up every once in a blue. the kicker is that I was born in brooklyn (flatbush ave) yet I mess up like that.
and w/e about boston and it's security protocol. it happened wished it didn't but there's almost a 100 perctent chance it won't happen again..
as a matter of fact im in logan int' airport right now heading to tampa to see my sis for a week (stopping in charlotte n.c. 1st) and damn was the sec. process arduous. they kept on about my xbox 360 it frustrated me a bit but afterwards a couple of slices of sbarros peperoni pizzas and and 2 corona beers (which they serve to my surpries/delight) melted it all away but I digress...
My list for the US my list is
boston
philidelphia
jamestown, va
wash. dc
ny, ny
Originally posted by Tenebrous
The topic is already displayed for you "Most Important City in History" there is no room for misinterpretation,
my fullest apologies
you must obviously have access to some universal interpretive ability that I am not privy to
because for me, the terms "history" and "important" can be interpreted in oh so many ways.
shame on me, for questioning this universal interpretation
🙄
so, not that I want to argue, but there is no significance, to you, in the fact that the NY yankees emblem is as ubiquitous as the ****ing cross or crescent and star?
maybe that isn't an academic dissertation on the historical power of various cities, but as far as impacting the most people at any given time...
With the risk of being discarded as nonconstructive and trolling and god knows what... I have to say: this thread is full of bull.
If something gets my hairs up straight, it's (among other things) "what's the most important X in history"?
There is one simple answer: different times, different regions.
As Ushgarak pointed out on page 1: Rome? People think of the Roman Empire, not Rome when referring to it. London? Much more needed in the empire than Rome. Is it there for more important? No. Why? Because it's different times.
On this page for example: "America has the biggest communication network". So? Communication is not everything. Besides, with such arguments there can't be a "most important city in history" (or region in this case) because in 50 years another region will have a bigger and better communication network.
You simply can't pick, because saying for instance the Dutch in Asia were important for trade is doing incredible injustice to the Silk Roads.
Another thing is: what about the cities you forget? I highly doubt anyone knows the Belgian city of Mechelen, but for the Austrian Hapsburgers it was very important. I don't remember if it was their capital of the Low Countries, but they certainly saw it as an important city. (Last year some descendant got married in the cathedral of Mechelen... kinda significant he picked Mechelen instead of Vienna, no?).
Besides, you're also asking to discuss taste. What's holding someone to say (s)he thinks Cuzco was the most important city in history due to the city being shaped like a leopard? What's holding someone else to say that Troy was the most important city in history (just let's say it did exist where most claim it has been) because of the famous war?
There has been made a list of most popular American presidents public today (or yesterday?)... Lincoln got first because he united the States after ending the civil war. Great! Good job! But why didn't Roosevelt win? Was he less important? Of course not! But again: different times. I find it appalling that historians dare to venture into "who's more important". Bush junior was somewhere at the end, thus with the least popular... how can historians judge him? If they should know something, it's that things can change easily: in perhaps 20 years, he might actually be one of the most popular ones.
Again, you simply can't compare. It's down to taste and what you can remember at the point the question is asked. But most important: you're doing injustice to history by comparing across borders and time and therefore reducing certain events while praising others.