h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

They established an (admittedtly rather shortlived) colony in America, as well.

Anyway, on the subject of US imperialism, I think this describes how many Europeans feel about the current administration rather well:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3836/bush_seeks_un_support.html


Cheers,
~Bistro

"As a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, America has inspired the world,"

That was too close to be amusing.

I wish people would stop lumping "Europeans" together. We're a pretty diverse continent, with no two nations being alike (especially politically), and I don't like people lazily saying "Europeans think this" and "European opinion is". OK?

The term used was 'Many Europeans'. It clearly isn't an attempt to state that it reflects the opinions of *all* europeans or even that *most* Europeans think the same.

As France and Germany have re-affirmed their opposition to war recently, I'd say that it's safe to say that *many* Europeans oppose the war.

Obviously there are also those Europeans who would gladly convert their back gardens into air-strips if they thought it would help the war effort.

if my choice of words offended you, Zagreb. When I said "many Europeans", I meant just that, no generalizations intended. Being a Dane, living in Western Europe, that's actually the opinion I get from most of the people I talk to (and an opinion I'm inclined to share myself).

But I am fully aware that this doesn't mean that it's the opinion of each and every European, and I wasn't trying to insinuate anything like that at all.

So, can you find it in your heart to forgive me?


Cheers,
~Bistro

I wouldn't have thought a Scott would be bothered by the idea in the first place. But there you go...

Bistrois, have a beer

Sorry, the whole "lump Europe together" thing bugs me, and your inoffensive posting was a wee final straw on a very laden camel. Sorry if I came across as a grumpy ol' b*****d (I'm a grumpy young b*****d )

Here's to you


~Bistro

I've just come along here, via TD's space, and so someone might have posted more info about the adverts you mention, Gosho. '132 of 190 member states'. Scary!

For years I lovingly carried round in the back of my very small brain, the idea for a biting satirical film. It would be made one day, I thought, NOT as a condemnation of American Imperialism but as a friendly wake-up call to American Imperialists. I mean if you're going to do something do it right.

America is definitely going about enforcing their New World Order. But will they learn from history. Not if they don't admit the truth of what is happening. They will make the same mistakes every empire has made before.

I wanted to help. My plan was to intercut/edit the chariot racing scenes from 'Ben Hur' with contemporary footage of stock car racing in America; real NASCAR events coverage and some specific scenes from select American films about stock car racing like 'Days of Thunder' and 'Smokey and the Bandit'. Not just the car scenes and the angry agression and fear of the drivers, but close-ups of the cheering crowd, the mob. My idea was to get Americans to see who they were becoming. If they could recognise these simple parallels they might stop denying it and get on with learning from history how to do it properly.

The problem is denial. Until they see themselves as the successors to Rome and admit to becoming an empire they will refuse to see and avoid the pitfalls history makes so obvious.

Sadly, I saw a tv advert the other day which did exactly what I had planned; except it only showed the racing, not the effect it has on the crowds. And it used even older B&W footage from a really old 'Roman' silent-movie and cut it with the very latest and slickest footage from NASCAR in full, roaring, screaming hi-fidelity.

This 'contrast' of 'media' has a validating effect. It distances the two events in time, as one would when illustrating 'progress'. And so it validates the kinds of differentiation anyone in denial will construe.

My only satisfaction is that I can't recall what product it might have been selling. I just know it's too late for me to hold up that particular mirror to the emperor's nudity; the wrong associations have already been programmed into their brains. They now think NASCAR is 'progress' over Ben Hur not a recurring symptom of decadence. They only see the 'advantage' of having roaring-internal-combustion-engines-driving-four-wheels instead of horses-pulling-two.

The ad never showed the bloodthirsty crowds - which have changed little. If the mob has changed at all it's only that the Romans never had foot-long hot-dogs hanging outa their gobs.

I eagerly await the opening of the first McVomitorium.
peace
~jwf~

That was a really good idea you had, jwf, pitty it got pre-empted! I have always seen many resemblances between modern USA and ancient Rome -- takeaway bars, large blocks of flats (apartments) being only two. (Insulae, was the name for the blocks of flats - it now means islands!) I learned a lot more about Romne from Lindsey Davis' Falco novels than I did from history, but she's quite sympathetic. The ancient Romans were *frighteningly* modern!

America being the new Rome has some bad connotations too...like how Rome succumbed to mad emperors and then was sacked by barbarian hordes...

Sure, there are no barbarians today in that sense, but we certainly have mad emperors (W) and people willing to support them (NRA, Christian Coalition). Not *that* mad (he's [kinda] stupid, but not insane), but still, the possibility exists.

ing,
Vidmaster

Lead pipes, is apparently what done in the Ancient Romans. How about vehicle exhaust combined witn the corruption of power, for the modern 'Romans'?

"Lead pipes, is apparently what done in the Ancient Romans."

People should read their history (if they did, this thread would arguably not be here ). The Roman's didn't go into decline because they were all stupid, it was a few simple daft mistakes by some Emperors that lead to Barbarian incursions into the Empire.

"Sure, there are no barbarians today in that sense, but we certainly have mad emperors"

Interestingly, both American President and Roman Emperor are nominally the same role - head of an officially republican system (the Emperor was Head of the Senate - the Latin Imperator was derived from an ancient term for "Field Marshall" - it was never intended to be a monarchist title). The main difference is that although the Emperor was officially simply head of the Senate in reality he was a monarch with supreme power. I know a lot of you would love to believe Bush has supreme power but he doesn't. He is heavily compromised by public opinion and the other layers of government. The Roman rulers never had this problem, and so their excesses or stupidities were unchecked. The Empire's awesome power and size were arguably what kept it from collapsing due to the power of the Emperor's office (that and a few well-placed Palace Coups )

" I know a lot of you would love to believe Bush has supreme power winkeye but he doesn't. He is heavily compromised by public opinion and the other layers of government. "

Do you really wish to uphold *that* argument?