Did Britain Create The Modern World?

The modern world is a product of every culture, but I think Britain and her offspring's contribution is unrivaled.

This question, to me, seems a bit vague. How far back are you looking for a cause? Certainly, there have been many cultures before Britain that have made "advances" or changes to culture that have had influence on the modern world. There have been cultures that have influenced the creation of Britain itself. Also, the word 'World' needs a bit more specification. Britain has certainly had a lot of influence on the Western world, but much less on the east. China, for example, has been influenced a certain degree by Britain, but it has been influenced a lot more by Chinese history.

Individuals also influence history, especially when it comes to inventions. If a person is a citizen of a country does the influence that results from his/her invention then translate to being caused by his/her country? What of an expatriate? Which country gets credit for his/her invention?

This question seems far too vague to answer without extensive empirical evidence as well as a clarification of value judgments used to determine what the "modern" world is and what things are important and necessary for its "creation".

Perhaps you could break your question down to more specific terms. What constitutes 'modern' in your question? And perhaps 'created' should be 'assisted the development of'? And by 'World' do you mean culture, business politics or something else?

Britian's major influence on the Modern era was the technicological advance in manufacturing that resulted in the Industrial Revolution. Beyond this one would get into a sticky argument justifying Britian as the leader in creating a modern world.

A novel whose moral questioning very accurely describes 'Modern' society is 'Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley, written in 1932. The novel features worshippers of the symbol "T". The cross of Christianity has been decapitated to represent the Model T Ford, the first assembly line process of manufacturing.

There is a very interesting book called "A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History" by Manuel DeLanda which constructs an alternate view of how the West has come into being, the book is divided into sections which discuss the effects of geology, economics, linguistics, etc. Interesting food for thought.

I think the constituents of "the modern world" are self-evident. Its an observable continua of history and geology. Only interpretation is open to most observers, very few are in a position to make real and calculable impact on "the modern world".
Historically, the United Kingdom defeated France, Spain, Portugal and the Dutch in their bids to further dominate the Western Hemisphere. Its true culturally those non-Anglican influences still survive in the Western Hemisphere, but politically they have long been out of the picture, leaving a vacuum with the only remaining ties being lingual and cultural similarity. Britannia absorbed the rest into its empire, like the Canadian French for example.
What Britain left for the French and the Spaniards, Britain's child the United States took in the Louisiana Purchase and the Spanish American War of 1898, and the USA filled the vacuum left by the Spanish by taking rich territory in the Mexican War.
Spain even lost the Philippines in 1898, making the USA a World Power.
Geo-politically the Anglican influence is unequalled.
Take also for example, the current state of Middle East. The UK and it's children nations have literally defined the Middle East. Britain drew the borders early in the last century. The United States and United Kingdom were the driving force behind the creation of the United Nations and Israel.
In the Middle East they look upon the Crusades as if it happened yesterday.
Science has a diverse foundation dating back to the ancients, however since the explosion of scientific and technological advances the West has led in both endeavours.
Who has led the West during the Industrial Revolution, and the revolutions in Science and Technology? ...It's been English speaking people, with the exception of some fields, such as Physics where the Germans did dominate in the 20th Century.
Even so, most of the German brilliance was absorbed by the West and the Communist Bloc.
Medicine, Education, and Economics have also been dominated by the West.
Many cultures, and I dare say ALL cultures have laid bricks in the construction of the modern world, but the English speaking sphere has undoubtedly built upon those layers in an unrivaled manner.

No, the modern world is nearly completely the creation of the Catholic Church, which has suffered much from it. Now, England is a bit of an aberation, having done some things differently with its laws, but, for the most part, the first modern Western State, with the first modern system of Western Law, as well as the system of universities to teach law, and all other subjects, was the creation of the Church. I recommend highly a book that was the best of its kind in 1984, called Law and Revolution. It is history, and it covers all of this stuff from beyond the laws of Justinian, to tribal law, and judaic law.

All that we think of as modern is almost exactly a thousand years old, and is a result of one simple fact: Jesus did not return as expected, and the most organized, and educated, institution in society was the church. They took over, and it is because of them needing Plato and the philosopher to resolve the contradictions in Roman law that we even have Greek philosophy. It is only possible that the Muslims, in rejecting philosophy for spiritualism, would have preserved what the church has preserved.

History for the past thousand years has been the story of law. International trade, corporations, constitutions, and even wars have had their legal issues. Individuals are for the most part a legal concept invented in large degree by the church. The inalienability of rights has its beginnings in the inalienable nature of church property. But, the notion of all men created equal is pure Catholic metaphysics -that is so easily, and often denied to day because the underlying metaphysics are busted. Fortunately, science proves what the church could never prove to the exploiters of humanity, and that is, that we are so nearly identical as to be considered equal, and are all brothers.

Fido, Slow down breathe and help us sort out your comments. You have some intriguing information to impart, but your syntax leads to statements which contradict themselves.

What do you think of as 'modern' that allows you to state that: "All that we think of as modern is almost exactly a thousand years old"?

And how does this statement relate to: "...is a result of one simple fact: Jesus did not return as expected..."

And lastly how do you arrive at the conclusion that: "the most organized, and educated, institution in society was the church" due to the idea that "Jesus did not return as expected" ?

Then you go to state that:
"They took over, and it is because of them needing Plato and the philosopher to resolve the contradictions in Roman law that we even have Greek philosophy. It is only possible that the Muslims, in rejecting philosophy for spiritualism, would have preserved what the church has preserved."

Can you please re-state this in order to remove the anachronistic aspects, the incorrect use of 'spiritualism' and the unclear syntax of the last phrase. I think you are referring to the Catholic Church's preservation of Greek philosophical texts, and possibly the Byzantine preservation of similar texts, Philosophy and Science. It was only once Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453 that control of the Eastern Empire began to shift to Islamic ideology. In effect the Muslims did not preserve Greek philosophy for over a thousand years ... the Greeks did (and not because it helped them sort out contradictions in 'Roman law').

Besides all of this business, I am not convinced by your argument that the Roman Catholic Church created the Modern World.

Well, they did not do it alone, but they had a bigger part in laying the foundations of it than did England alone. You have to admit that England has has some significant players like Henry the Eighth, but geography was their greatest protector, and it forced trade, and trade made military necessary; but all was done under the protection of law. And even in the sense that they broke the law they were in no sense unique. When they privatized the commons they turned many subsistence farmers into proletariate at the mercy of economic conditions; but apart from this human capital they also turned the labor of centuries into capital that could back investments; and they invented the National debt as a means of capital creation that would be paid off by labor. They did not simply harness carbon energy to iron to make products, but they effectively harnessed the entire population to production. It is not a simple story, and it takes many centuries to play out; but the fact is that England is a very rich country with a poor population that are renters in their own land, essentially without rights or prospects.

More than anything else "modernity" began with the Enlightenment. Think about the things brought by this period:

1. Major advancements in science, which eventually led to industrialization
2. Navigation, and the colonial era, which presaged both globalization and the cultural / economic domination that the "west" still enjoys
3. Modern political and economic theory
4. The Protestant reformation, i.e. the end of papal dominance
5. The establishment of the American colonies and eventually independence

Some aspects of modernity go back to late antiquity. The divisions of Europe after the death of Charlamagne largely reflect modern state boundaries, whereas in Roman times there was much less differentiation between the various Germanic regions.

The Crusades, and chiefly the fall of the Byzantine Empire also was critical to modernity -- it led to the Muslim (Ottoman) dominion of the near east and middle east, the first Muslim nationalism and pride in centuries (with Saladin being that figurehead), the isolation of the Orthodox and Catholic dominions, and the rise of the medieval city (esp in Venice and other coastal Italian cities).

Finally, one can argue that modernity was really born in the 1900-1945 period. This is a period that some examine as separate crises, but in reality is best viewed as a sort of massive suicide attempt (or civil war) within Western civilization as a whole. The tensions and crises that existed in 1900 were not resolved until tens of millions had died from wars over nationalism, empire, and utopianism. And at the end of all of this, I think the world had finally reached the cynical vs despondant vs satirical mindset of post-modernity.

The modern world is not science for the betterment of humanity, it isn't fair free trade, it is the church. Not just the Catholic church or the Mosque or Temple but the Hollywoods, the stock exchange, the gold medal tally at the Olmypics. Tyrany has forced science into blocks of patent sales and naming rights. Greed outweighs need and a gusto for ones own church, leads along the path that is modernization.

England brought sport and its fairness out into the world and the world has abused the privelage to express just how modern and fair their lives are in some place. Winning is now nothing but a memory of the day, winning more is the modern world. The church and its concept of we are the way. The industrial revolution, science and charity do not fit in any modern church I know. Every day is now blessed Sunday in the modern world.

You know; The Catholic church made the modern world more than any single country, because they wrote the laws and taught them. And their system of laws was the first modern system of law, and their state was the first modern state. And then the protestants made it what it is, a mirror of Judea, where wealth is justified, and poverty is proof of sin. It is hard to imagine how so few could countrol so much, and it would not be possible except for the trust and ignorence of mankind who worry for their souls, count on miracles, and mind their business.

It is funny Fido how wealth that you are actually talking of is the production of wealth as opposed to wealth that is in the posession of the aristocracy. Of course wealthy landlords and education simply for those who can afford the privelage of not having to earn another franc to help feed the family is your idea of how the modern world should see its roots. Of course you could always expect a franc if a carriage ran over one of your twenty children because having sex is a sin and procreation is the aim. I don't think you have an idea of what is meant in the concept of modern and by the term law you refer to obedience and servitude as opposed to fair and just.

I do have a concept of modern, and that is not to say we could not do much better. I don't agree with the law. Judges have little disgression to judge the law against the facts, but can only judge the facts against the law. The fact is that all we do we do in a legal milieu, even wars. And the fact is that all we think of as modern in our governments and institutions is about a thousand years old, and the beginnings of it were in the realization that the world did not end when Jesus did not return, and so the church which was the universal form of government at that point took over society. From that age we have our great medieval philosophers, the development of international law, and law merchant, and great universities. The rationality that divided philosophy from theology doomed the world to protestantism which wrapped theology in ever greater swathes of faith, but which in turn left capitalism free of moral restraint. So, it does not work, but on the other hand, Western society grew many branches out of a common root. And what most affects us, and makes the social contract workable goes back further yet in the history of the church, and it is spolation. What this means is, that if someone takes what is yours, you cannot take it back by force (despoiling) without giving him a better title to it than you began with. Handy, hunh? This puts us at odds with the Muslims who see that they have an absolute right to justice, because our only claim on justice comes about when we are peaceful. Since most theft is peaceful, and even legal, peace only makes injustice a done deal. We have only an absolute right to peace, and when we say the rule of law to Muslims, it means that we will impose peace regardless of whether it is just or not. And the thing is; it was not so long ago that we were all like the Muslims, and all like the German tribes, and all like the American Native Nations. It is law, and in particular, Catholic Church law that has brought us into the modern world for good or bad. I recommend the Book, Law and Revolution; The formation of the Wesern Legal tradition, by harold J. Berman, widely available in paperback.

I think you can narrow a fault in capitalism down to patent, copyright and trademark. The greed, lust for treasure and riches can be said to be ancient syndromes and not a result of Protestantism or the Reformation. The world outside the elite and the church having knowledge, is due more to these factors than the supression held over the populace of the church or the opression forced onto them by the elite. Knowledge brought the world up to the palace gates. Knowledge brought the church to its knees in respect of religion and knowledge is the result of people being seen as equal. Something the church and the aristocracy did not give to the population. We were more like others of the world when we released the shackles of the suppressors, while still not denying what we knew. Are you saying that without protestantism, the world might not be so spoilt. Perhaps you are correct but that is how we have abused our own little piece of knowledge. Stand there and condemn the knowlege you have, I wont see you face the church of England or the tombstone of Luther, you will see the Catholic church being your opressor. It took close to seventeen hundred years to remember what education was, so do not put modernity in the same context as the Catholic church.

Not just Britain alone, France had it's hand it igniting the process toward Modernity. (I speak of Descartes and Bacon)

Bacon was English.

That's why I said not Britain alone. I should have said: "France had it's hand in igniting the process toward Modernity as well".

Sorry.

Ciao, I'm a new arrival and since I live in the UK it seemed to me natural to start my "first entry" here...

Amazing! Did Britain create the modern world? Talk about ethnocentrism!
And I who always thought it had been Caesar Augustus, the engederer of a united Europe, the EU actually! Hmmm...

(I'm of mixed genealogies, where Italian is strongly present, as well as Judaic roots and Gallic intromissions -- but I'm glad to see that religion is ever present, in any of your debacles -- it'd make Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens extremely happy...)

Bacon is ALWAYS English, especially with fried eggs!

But, whenever he's mentioned in vain, I'd then prefer analysing the semiological roots of Hermes Trismegistus...

Ah, now I see.

And you're right, France certainly had a hand in developing the modern world.

It seems to me that no nation could be excluded from a list of nations that 'created' the modern world. The British might have more influence on the shape of our modern world than, say, Bhutan, but even that small country has played some role.