What would the world be like without the United States?

[TTanT]

I think you guys misinterpreted my post. I was trying to say civilization is a very ambiguous term. What defines what is a civilization and where is the cutoff point? And please, do not copy paste Wikipedia's definition of civilization just to be a jerk. I am not putting down any native people. I'm sorry if it came off that way.

 

On another point, (directed at Shadowfax) it would be very foolish to assume that all native tribes of the Americas were peaceful and simply slaughtered by brutal Europeans. Yes, there are plenty of examples of peaceful groups, but many of the groups of people (like the Nahua I mentioned in my first post who were conquered by Cortez, along with many other similar groups throughout the Americas) are in a constant state of warfare. Their entire lives are based off an ancient tradition of warfare. Their rise to power in the area was fueled by warfare and their demise will always be through military conquest. These people have been doing this for thousands of years before the arrival of ANY Europeans. Am I saying that it was right for Cortez to destroy the Nahua society? No, but there are two sides to each coin.

 

I don't exactly have a definition, nor care to think up of one, but I can say that I would definitely call the Native American's a civilization. I see no reason not to. They were their own people. They had their own culture, they're own society, they're own way of life. That's a civilization in my eyes.

 

Faux didn't say that they didn't have warfare, nor do I think he meant it. The Europeans did slaughter a lot of the Native American's unfairly. They had no strong reason to what they did, they had no strong reason to take away their land (it's greed, that's not just), put them in concentration camps, rape their women, take their children away and sent to boarding schools, break their treaties, none of that. I don't blame everyone white person for what happened (like I know some native's today do), because they didn't take part in it. I can't say "I hate you for your ancestors", as that's not right. However, I can say that those who did take part, I have absolutely no respect for.

Obviously I think what the Conquistadores did was wrong, but I think what Range was trying to express was that the Native American peoples weren't exactly pacifist victims either. They simply got the short end of the stick technology and luck wise.

 

If roles were reversed, they would've done the same. (Now, I'm not saying what was done was right, but I'm tired of people describing the Native American peoples as total victims. Half of those so called 'advanced, peaceful' southern nations practiced human sacrifce, for goodness sakes.)

[Vulxai]

Obviously I think what the Conquistadores did was wrong, but I think what Range was trying to express was that the Native American peoples weren't exactly pacifist victims either. They simply got the short end of the stick technology and luck wise.

 

If roles were reversed, they would've done the same. (Now, I'm not saying what was done was right, but I'm tired of people describing the Native American peoples as total victims. Half of those so called 'advanced, peaceful' southern nations practiced human sacrifce, for goodness sakes.)

 

Oh no, I know they weren't angels themselves, there was definitely war between them. No one who knows the Native American history will say that the Native American's were completely peaceful, as that's untrue, it's the uneducated who say that.

 

In all honesty, I'm not sure if that's true. If the Native's went to a new continent, I don't think they would have done the same thing. For the most part, most Northern American tribes only went where food was. They would have no use conquering other countries and civilization, as they were nomadic, and would have left the area once the food left, as well. Of course, this is opinion.

[Giordano]

The natives of United States and Canada probably wouldn't, but the Aztec and Incas would of totally conqered europeans if given the chance.

[Vulxai]

The natives of United States and Canada probably wouldn't, but the Aztec and Incas would of totally conqered europeans if given the chance.

 

You got a point, they probably would have.

[Range_This11]

They most definitely would have, at least the Aztecs (Nahua) would have. I'm not too keen on my Incan history at the moment. Those cultures believe that if you are defeated by another group of people, their god(s) must be amazingly powerful and that you need to believe in their gods as a result. Now the tricky part is that they didn't stop believing in their own gods when the Spanish conquered them. Take for instance the Virgin of Guadalupe, often she is depicted standing on snakes. This can be interpreted as either a Spanish effort to show that Christianity is crushing the old gods (as the snake is a central figure in much of ancient Mexican civilization) or a way of appeasing the native people by adding a little bit of their old religion into Christianity...you decide. There is much more behind the colonization of the Americas than people like to believe. It's in the details, folks ;)

[das1330]

The natives of United States and Canada probably wouldn't, but the Aztec and Incas would of totally conqered europeans if given the chance.

 

It is worth noting that only the Maya, Inca and Aztecs had any developed concept of a state; all other tribes were just that - tiny, primitive and disorganized. Violence is human nature and these were simply the only Native Americans with the organization necessary to effectively carry out violent actions.

[Giordano]

The natives of United States and Canada probably wouldn't, but the Aztec and Incas would of totally conqered europeans if given the chance.

 

It is worth noting that only the Maya, Inca and Aztecs had any developed concept of a state; all other tribes were just that - tiny, primitive and disorganized. Violence is human nature and these were simply the only Native Americans with the organization necessary to effectively carry out violent actions.

Exactly my point. I'm not an idiot.

[Nadril]

Haven't really read through the thread so I apologize if it's been mentioned already.

 

I'm more curious of what the geography of north america would look like without a "united states". Like would it all be controlled by one country or would there be multiple countries with land like in Europe? Also I wonder what it would mean for WW 1 or WW2? Would there have been a cold war without the United States?

 

 

Far more interesting than wondering about what would get invented where in my opinion.

[Giordano]

There's a load of possiblities with that one.

 

Though I'm willing to bet most of the Americans would revolt eventually.

[Icuownage]

I know that if American's didn't exist today would be a lot less significant.

[chiefmuncie1]

If the United States never existed (including the Colonies), I would not be here. My ancestors would have most likely found someone else in England to make babies with, thus eliminating the possibility of my lineage from ever coming into existence.

 

Likewise, wouldn't England be a little overcrowded? One would think so because a lot of families left England for the New World. Imagine if they all just stayed there...

 

We would probably not have had the French Revolution, and assuming that Spain and France didn't really expand that much into the New World, the indigenous population would have remained intact. We would still have the Cherokee nation, among others.

 

Without the United States, things would simply be completely different. Without the US, we would very likely still be living in a Colonial world since the United States played a significant role in the process of decolonization ("self-determination").

 

(I know that we're mainly talking about inventions, but it is a bollocks argument compared to the aforementioned, which is more interesting to contemplate.)

 

 

 

 

 

we still have the cherokee nation is just mixed with half breeds like myself in it. i'am half cherokee, 20% irish, 20% french, and 10% german.

[Pirate_Felix]

If the United States never existed (including the Colonies), I would not be here. My ancestors would have most likely found someone else in England to make babies with, thus eliminating the possibility of my lineage from ever coming into existence.

 

Likewise, wouldn't England be a little overcrowded? One would think so because a lot of families left England for the New World. Imagine if they all just stayed there...

 

We would probably not have had the French Revolution, and assuming that Spain and France didn't really expand that much into the New World, the indigenous population would have remained intact. We would still have the Cherokee nation, among others.

 

Without the United States, things would simply be completely different. Without the US, we would very likely still be living in a Colonial world since the United States played a significant role in the process of decolonization ("self-determination").

 

(I know that we're mainly talking about inventions, but it is a bollocks argument compared to the aforementioned, which is more interesting to contemplate.)

 

 

 

 

 

we still have the cherokee nation is just mixed with half breeds like myself in it. i'am half cherokee, 20% irish, 20% french, and 10% german.

Oh well that sucks, having that much parents.

 

(100% Dutch ;D!)

 

[hide]On topic: a lot more tea and yellow teeth[/hide]

[das1330]

Haven't really read through the thread so I apologize if it's been mentioned already.

 

I'm more curious of what the geography of north america would look like without a "united states". Like would it all be controlled by one country or would there be multiple countries with land like in Europe? Also I wonder what it would mean for WW 1 or WW2? Would there have been a cold war without the United States?

 

 

Far more interesting than wondering about what would get invented where in my opinion.

 

 

The United States did nearly get split up into multiple small, Europe-like countries. Had the north lost the civil war, its' doubtful that the confederacy would have been able to hold the southern states together, so a general breakup would have likely occurred. Overall, it would make the whole world quite a bit more boring - when no one country has any real power nothing happens easily. Look at any European project, for example.

[Pirate_Felix]

Haven't really read through the thread so I apologize if it's been mentioned already.

 

I'm more curious of what the geography of north america would look like without a "united states". Like would it all be controlled by one country or would there be multiple countries with land like in Europe? Also I wonder what it would mean for WW 1 or WW2? Would there have been a cold war without the United States?

 

 

Far more interesting than wondering about what would get invented where in my opinion.

 

 

The United States did nearly get split up into multiple small, Europe-like countries. Had the north lost the civil war, its' doubtful that the confederacy would have been able to hold the southern states together, so a general breakup would have likely occurred. Overall, it would make the whole world quite a bit more boring - when no one country has any real power nothing happens easily. Look at any European project, for example.

We don't kill civilians of other countries and win wars and stuff maybe but we do advance a lot more in technology.

[a_bert]

It's kind of hard to discuss what the world would be like if the USA hadn't existed, because of the international level on which the world runs, but invention wise? Nothing would change, really. Those things would still have been invented, even if it was a bit slower.

[Icuownage]

It really depends, when does the US disappear in this hypothetical scenario?

 

If it never comes into existence, nothing changes until the 19th when the Aztecs become a supernation as technically advanced as Europe and wreak havoc on the world.

If it were in 1930 the whole world would be [bleep]ed because nobody would have had a chance to stop Japan during WW2.

 

I think they mean if the colonies never rebelled

 

If they don't, then probably something like, over population in the European countries sparks wars, the tiny European countries are crushed under the other European super powers such as Germany or Russia. All Europeans nations left are either superpowers or protected by a super power, strong alliances are formed, there will probably be multiple European unions. Wars in Asia, and Africa and Australia begin, probably forged by European nations, in quest for as much land as possible for large population. Germany invent the nuke, followed by Russia and then I guess Britain. Germany is probably in control of the European mainland, Russia controls a large part of Asian land as well as their European part, Britain controls the sea, with it's only rivals being Japan or Spain.

 

I dunno, I was just making things up XD

[M21112]

world without america = peace

[Iconic]

I agree with him, Rocco. No Vietnam, No Iraqi war.

Peace is defined by fighting and arguing, not ignorance (despite the fact he's not being ignorant at all).

[Iconic]

I understand that but there would be no present war.

Too tired too argue.

[M21112]

the usa wants the sudan and somalia oil ; ) i wont argue anymore

[Icuownage]

Oh god, saying no America = peace is silly, I might think that America maybe the cause for most wars, but just cause they've involved in a lot of them doesn't mean that war suddenly doesn't exist. War has been around for a very long time, and America hasn't.....

[a_bert]

without america there would have been more wars and probably more horrific ones too

[Alg]

I just think the wars would have been different. Not as a whole better or worse.

There would still have been a first and second world war, and the Cold War would probably be more Europe-based. There'd have been no American Civil War, and if there was an American Revolution it would have been in some other colony.

[Icuownage]

Japan would have invaded eastern Russia, resulting in Russia's inevitable surrender, unless they were SERIOUSLY lucky.

 

With Russia defeated, Britain follows, and all the other nations.... Then Japan and Nazi faceoff. With Nazi Germany winning cause of nukes.

[Alg]

Would it have been fought the same way without another the US in the pacific, though? Canada and Australia might/could have fought there instead, but they'd probably have been helping Britain instead.

The US had territory in the pacific, which is how we could manage the war there fairly easily.