Iraq (cf. Fertile Crescent).
:smack: Dammit all.
Interesting point about the history, though. I had thought the Qin dynasty was earlier than that, compared to Greece and Rome.
No, no, no. China has a glonous history (and cultual!) not “greatest history.”
I’m referring to British Colonialism and you know well America and Russia defeated fascism. Without America’s participation things would have significantly different. Britain certainly bore an awful burden very bravely though. No doubt about that.
British history has much more to it than British Colonialism. You were specifically talking about Britain’s long history.
What does that mean, just the good parts?
I’m a big anglophile, I mean no disrespect. As noted previously, all countries have plenty of things they might have done better. The USA is certainly no exception.
I think the winner really is The Jews. More than half of the world refers to their ancient texts to found the basis of their culture. So the Jews have the greatest history because their history dominates the histories of both Christianity and Islam.
No, it means the good and the bad. Not just the bad parts.
Look back at what you said.
Which when called on you stated:
This makes it seem very much like you think of Britain’s long history as being solely the colonialism. Which is bollocks. And while I have no desire to claim the days of Empire as positive, it seems other countries were worse in how they left their overseas possessions.
Colbert has nothing to do with this thread. The OP seemed to be asking it as an honest question, regardless that it may have been originally asked in satire.
Why do you hate America? See I can ask a question honestly that used to be satire.
Probably a cultural thing. Here in the US we (the educated, enlightened few 
) hear about British history in more detail than any other country. From the days of King Arthur* onward, we learn about Battle of Hastings, Magna Carta, Roger Bacon, Henry 8th, Shakespeare/Marlowe/Milton/etc, Pax Britannica, start of the Industrial Revolution, Victoria, etc etc etc, all up to the day when British History officially ended when the Beatles broke up.
Probably a result of all that “mother country” business.
*Yeah, I know he very likely didn’t exist. Still makes for a good story.
Exactly, he said it as a joke. I thought it made for some fun if you remove it from that context. So “Whoosh” right back at you, Kimmy_Gibbler.
And the aqueducts.
Arguable. The US took the Wealth of Nations much more to heart than the UK since we pretty much were able to build from scratch.
The leader of the land in the UK (the monarch) was not elected by anyone, and the representatives in parliament didn’t represent all citizens of the nation. The representatives also tended to come solely from the aristocracy–though it looks like this wasn’t necessarily a law.
Most importantly is that people didn’t consider the British government to be a representative government. Certainly it didn’t take massive changes to reconfigure it into being one, but that still doesn’t make it be one.
Of course you didn’t get all that from the Brits. When you started your nation it was a good copy of the Netherlands.
Quite possible. Several of the colonies were Dutch-formed so I would expect their influence on the setup of government.
As to capitalism, The Wealth of Nations was based on observations of factories and businesses around Britain, so factories and business certainly existed on their own, presumably all around Europe. But as the title of the book suggests, he was advocating something more than a single-businesses outlook. Trade isn’t a zero-sum system, banks should loan out money to spur invention, invention creates more wealth, etc. I know for certain that the idea was all the rage in nascent America, but I’d want to see a cite that this was also true there? (Maybe y’all are the winners. 
)
Not really. The United Provinces had a hereditary nobility and hereditary stadholders, and such elections as there were (some provinces had none) had extremely limited suffrage.
There were certain common elements, because both the US and the UPN had to resolve problems of federalism, which the UK generally didn’t. But such similarities as emerged were more convergent evolution to solve a common problem, not conscious imitation or a close copy.
Just for the sake of argument – what about Iran? Contains some of the oldest cities in the world, maintained independence for most of its history, spawned great empires, and made enduring contributions to world culture.
Selection bias, much?
I counter that Capitalism hasn’t really done that much to improve humanity’s lot.
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/images2/Life_Expect_Long.gif
Philosophers for centuries argued that greed was a bad thing. Then one smart guy looked at real evidence and said, “Hey, you know what? If you assume that everyone’s a greedy bastard, it’s not too hard to set up a system where each person will want to work hard to improve everyone else’s lot on the planet.”
The ancient Greeks invented loads of stuff. During the Muslim Golden Age, they had the scientific method and lots of knowledge. Neither of these ended up leading to much but a few books written.
People like to reinvent the wheel, and they generally don’t like to work together. They don’t like to work long hours taking someone else’s orders in a hierarchy, unless there’s personal gain to be had. For instance, being able to climb in the hierarchy. And you need hierarchies like that to achieve the production of goods in a way that lasts for more than a few months. And you need the sort of mass revenue that creates to support a research team who can work on improving the product or coming up with new products.
Capitalism might not be the be-all and end-all of the world, but nothing else on the planet has ever done as much for the lot of humanity as it.
There is certainly a valid argument to be made for Iran. The greatest civilizations in history I would argue would be The West, Persia and China. Persian scientists were at the top of the charts during the height of Islamic Scientific achievement when the west was backward in comparison. Even today, Iranians are better educated than their Islamic brethren elsewhere. If Iran can overcome the ayatollahs I think it has it in its makeup to be one of the great nations of the world.