The question sounds garbled i guess. So simply put. Can modern day Egyptians claim that Ancient Egypt is their proud moment in history.
Replace egyptians with Romans, Greeks, Indians etc.
At what point in time do you say…nah…you are nothing like them…it was too far back in time. Their achievements are not your proud moments.
People can go back as far as they want, and attach what meaning they will to their supposed heritage. And the rest of us are free to judge them as we will got it, based on what it says about them, that they take pride in such a thing.
ETA: I’d say taking personal pride in your mother or father’s accomplishments, as if they are your own, is no less ridiculous than being proud of your ancient ancestry.
Since there’s no factual answer to this, lets move it to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Humans have a maximum lifespan of just over 120 years, so I’ll go with 135 years back to be sure.
As an American, I can’t really go further back than 1776.
From my trip to Italy a few years back, Italians do seem to consider Rome (founded 753 BC) as part of their shared culture and heritage. I would imagine they would also consider the city of Matera (founded 7000 BC) as part of their shared culture.
I can claim my Southern California home area back to about 1875. One of my childhood classmates could go a century earlier. But we descended from the invaders.
1788 for the vast majority of Australians, so a little over 200 years ago. Our indigenous population can track their ancestors back 40,000+ years though.
Chinese claim the Mongolian empire as their own. So pretty much forever.
Ancient Egypt.
Nobody living there speaks the same language as 3000 years ago. The don’t see the pyramids or the Sphinx as part of their own culture. Heads of state do not hold ceremonies there.They don’t teach hieroglyphics in high schools.
Stonehenge in England.
Nobody gets national inspiration from the site, and British culture does not use it as any kind of serious symbol (other than a few crackpots 
).They don’t teach Druid culture in high schools.The Queen doesn’t hold ceremonies there, there are no red-coated guards in fur hats.
Greece.They still speak the same language as Socrates. They teach his philosophy in schools.
They are proud of the Parthenon as part of their own culture, not a distant past. The head of state appears there.
Israel.The current residents still speak the same language as 3000 years ago.They very much use the ancient religious sites every day, and hold major national ceremonies there.The current culture is based on the ancient history.
Ancient Rome is somewhere in between.
The current residents don’t speak the same language, but they do study it in high school. They are proud of the past, but don’t use it for inspiration about the future direction of their country and its culture.
So, in answer to the OP: it depends.
*(Either Lonely Planet, or the “Europe on $20 a Day” series.)
The only things I can take pride in or feel responsbility for are things done by me or by my direct support.
I feel no more kinship or pride for Newton than I do for Da Vinci.
hmmm…but I’ll bet that you feel more pride and cultural connection with both Newton and Da Vinci than you do with, say, Bhudda or Cleopatra or Lao Tze.
So it all depends.
We create a lot of our personal identity(which is only as old as you are) from our surrounding cultural and national identity,which is much older.
Thus the question remains: how far back do you go?
And that varies widely, as in my post above.
For most Americans, it includes about 250 years: cowboys, George Washington, etc. But probably not the Spanish missions in California.
For other countries, it includes a couple thousand years of history.
You’d lose that bet. What “pride” should I personally feel for any of them? I had absolutely no input, responsibility or endorsement for any of the things that any of them did.
And I’m not sure how you are defining “cultural connection” so can’t say more or less or why it would matter.
nevermind
I don’t know about you, but I consider the Pilgrims to be quintessentially American.
America is nearly unique among the world’s nations, in that it is NOT an ethnicity, nor is it necessarily even a place. Rather, it is an attitude. You can come from any part of the globe, from any background, and from the day you set foot on American soil, you are an American if you choose to be one.
I take pride and feel a connection with the founding fathers of the US. We share a common language and values.
I don’t have that feeling for other countries.
OK, but on the other hand you don’t allow foreign-born citizens to hold the highest office. You can have the most American attitude in the world but if you weren’t born there you are barred from being president.
I’m with Novelty Bobble. I don’t believe in holding the sins of the father against the son, but neither do I give credit to the son for the good done by the father. Tacking on yet more generations in between does nothing to strengthen that association between the acts of one and my perceptions, positive or negative, of the other.
As I recall, only about 50$ of Australians now have both grandparents born in Aus.
This thread reminded me of when I was in 6th grade, for social studies class everyone got assigned a different country to write a report about. Part of the assignment was to write a letter to the counrty’s embassy asking for information about their county. I got assigned Kuwait, and in response to my letter their embassy sent me an entire book about the country. Why this thread made me think of that was because the history section of that book included a timeline that basically made it look like Kuwait had existed since 600 B.C. or something like that (I don’t remember the exact year but it was something B.C.). Of course it’s hard to remember that long ago, but it seems like their attitude was basically “Our tribe settled here in 600 B.C., and it’s been Kuwait ever since.” I don’t believe there was even any mention of being a British protectorate, or when the modern state was established, which would have been useful for my report since I didn’t know those things at the time.
Yeah, but it’s true for most countries in the world that the nation (the community defined by language, place, culture, shared history) etc - is much older than the state (the political institution that now serves the community). The US is in the minority of countries where this is not the case. So, for Kuwaitis, as for e.g. the Irish, the acheivement of political independence may be a signficant event, but it is not the start of their story or the foundation or basis of their identity.