The alarming anti-Americanism in Europe

[Spyder]

Maybe I should have said a strong work ethic. But such a thing certainly exists. And some societys have it and some do not.

As for political liberty I was refering to basic civil rights not the method of choosing ones leaders.

"Rule of law"does not exist in all nations. In many nepotism and coruption are the dominant rule.
American success is based on natural wealth multipied by CULTURAL factors. Natural wealth alone does not explain American wealth and sucess. If it did Mexico, and Brazil would be very wealthy and Japan would be very poor

Work ethic: It's still a sweeping generalization. You don't get entire 'lazy populations', perhaps you mean lack of strong leadership?

Political Liberty: In the sence that you describe it is still highly questionable. Patriot Act, "you are either with us or you're against us", the constant flag waving, the dubiousness over GWB's election to presidency are all factors that indicate that such liberties are slowly eroding.

Rule of Law: I didn't say it existed in all nations, I said it's not unique to America. Although, from your reply, I would like to add that it would be foolish to assume that corruption does not play a part in American 'culture'. Using Germany as an example, their laws are all based on a principle of what is generally good, I've been told that they have a booklett that can be read in a single afternoon that would give someone a full understanding of their laws. Compare this to the American model where the legal system is more or less a collection of barriers that many in positions of power often seek to overcome. To bring this thread back on topic, this 'collection of barriers' idea is often reflected in US foreign policy, such as the US interpretation of the geneva convention which is yet another source of anti-americanism.

[The_Nice_Guy]

1. Abundant mineral and other natural resources, including incredibly fertile farmland. This allows us to produce things efficiently, keeping what is advantageous and selling what is not.

2. Friendly barrier countrys to the North and South and ocean to the East and West, guaranteeing virtual invincibility from attack. This allows us to spend less on military or to use it to enforce beneficial circumstances (the route we have chosen). It also means we have no natural enemies.

3. Unlike in some nations, epidemics and pandemics are not constantly wiping out sections of the population.

The stability of our politics, soundness of our institutions, might of our economy, values of our culture, etc. are all results of these geographical and ecological determinants. That is why the claims of superiority made by jingoists ring so hollow.

Well, like so many things, these are neccessary, but not sufficient conditions for success and claims of superiority. In fact, with the example of Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore, one might even argue that these are not neccessary factors, but rather only enabling ones! Only the 3rd factor seems most important, as it does affect economic might(reference: Hong Kong now).

These factors are not the cause of political stability, institutional soundness, economic might, and cultural values. Rather, they stand seperate, such that they allow any people(a very loose term) with a superior culture to exploit them to the fullest. You can have stability etc, but they won't be caused by the factors you mentioned. Your abductive reasoning here fails.

So what are the intangibles that allow success? Certainly, one can say that culture and values, not flukes of fortune in geographical dispensation, are important and indeed, neccessary factors. From this, it can be argued that some cultures are indeed better than others.

The Nice Guy

[Spyder]

Well, like so many things, these are neccessary, but not sufficient conditions for success and claims of superiority. In fact, with the example of Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore, one might even argue that these are not neccessary factors, but rather only enabling ones! Only the 3rd factor seems most important, as it does affect economic might(reference: Hong Kong now).

These factors are not the cause of political stability, institutional soundness, economic might, and cultural values. Rather, they stand seperate, such that they allow any people(a very loose term) with a superior culture to exploit them to the fullest. You can have stability etc, but they won't be caused by the factors you mentioned. Your abductive reasoning here fails.

So what are the intangibles that allow success? Certainly, one can say that culture and values, not flukes of fortune in geographical dispensation, are important and indeed, neccessary factors. From this, it can be argued that some cultures are indeed better than others.

The Nice Guy

That all depends on what you think makes a culture 'better'. If wealth is to be used as the measuring stick then it does it then not matter how that wealth was amassed?

[Aeolus]

Well, like so many things, these are neccessary, but not sufficient conditions for success and claims of superiority. In fact, with the example of Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore, one might even argue that these are not neccessary factors, but rather only enabling ones! Only the 3rd factor seems most important, as it does affect economic might(reference: Hong Kong now).

These factors are not the cause of political stability, institutional soundness, economic might, and cultural values. Rather, they stand seperate, such that they allow any people(a very loose term) with a superior culture to exploit them to the fullest. You can have stability etc, but they won't be caused by the factors you mentioned. Your abductive reasoning here fails.

So what are the intangibles that allow success? Certainly, one can say that culture and values, not flukes of fortune in geographical dispensation, are important and indeed, neccessary factors. From this, it can be argued that some cultures are indeed better than others.

The Nice Guy

That all depends on what you think makes a culture 'better'. If wealth is to be used as the measuring stick then it does it then not matter how that wealth was amassed?

Not really.
Wealth, power, and technical ability are a lot easier to measure, than ethics or morality both of those are relative terms.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

1. Abundant mineral and other natural resources, including incredibly fertile farmland. This allows us to produce things efficiently, keeping what is advantageous and selling what is not.

2. Friendly barrier countrys to the North and South and ocean to the East and West, guaranteeing virtual invincibility from attack. This allows us to spend less on military or to use it to enforce beneficial circumstances (the route we have chosen). It also means we have no natural enemies.

3. Unlike in some nations, epidemics and pandemics are not constantly wiping out sections of the population.

The stability of our politics, soundness of our institutions, might of our economy, values of our culture, etc. are all results of these geographical and ecological determinants. That is why the claims of superiority made by jingoists ring so hollow.

Well, like so many things, these are neccessary, but not sufficient conditions for success and claims of superiority. In fact, with the example of Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore, one might even argue that these are not neccessary factors, but rather only enabling ones! Only the 3rd factor seems most important, as it does affect economic might(reference: Hong Kong now).

These factors are not the cause of political stability, institutional soundness, economic might, and cultural values. Rather, they stand seperate, such that they allow any people(a very loose term) with a superior culture to exploit them to the fullest. You can have stability etc, but they won't be caused by the factors you mentioned. Your abductive reasoning here fails.

So what are the intangibles that allow success? Certainly, one can say that culture and values, not flukes of fortune in geographical dispensation, are important and indeed, neccessary factors. From this, it can be argued that some cultures are indeed better than others.

The Nice Guy

Name one country that had all these and didn't experience success (and before you say China, keep in mind that they didn't have the resources necessary to undergo an industrial revolution, and so fails the first condition).

[Spyder]

That all depends on what you think makes a culture 'better'. If wealth is to be used as the measuring stick then it does it then not matter how that wealth was amassed?

Not really.
Wealth, power, and technical ability are a lot easier to measure, than ethics or morality both of those are relative terms.

So you're saying might makes right?

[Aeolus]

That all depends on what you think makes a culture 'better'. If wealth is to be used as the measuring stick then it does it then not matter how that wealth was amassed?

Not really.
Wealth, power, and technical ability are a lot easier to measure, than ethics or morality both of those are relative terms.

So you're saying might makes right?

No, but IF we were to use wealth as the sole measuring stick (which I was not) then wealth would be the SOLE measuring stick.
Also is is a lot easier to measure tangible things like say GDP or GNP than to measure morality which is intangible and matter of opinion and perspective. After all Some people think the death penalty is wrong and barbaric others think letting murderers live is wrong and decadent. Some belive the goverment should feed and cloth the masses others believe the goverment has no buisness doing anything other than guarding the borders. Thier is NO "provable" right or wrong to any of these veiwpoints. They like all depend on ones philosphical beliefs. We are unlikly to agree on all of them. And we are unlikely to change each others minds of opinions we do not share.
Clearly some societies are more successful than others.
So we must find tangible measurmentsto use as yardsticks for the what societiess are "better".
What will these yardsticks be?;
1.wealth?
a. GPD?
b. GNP?
technical ability?
military power?

[Spyder]

So you're saying might makes right?

No, but IF we were to use wealth as the sole measuring stick (which I was not) then wealth would be the SOLE measuring stick.
Also is is a lot easier to measure tangible things like say GDP or GNP than to measure morality which is intangible and matter of opinion and perspective. After all Some people think the death penalty is wrong and barbaric others think letting murderers live is wrong and decadent. Some belive the goverment should feed and cloth the masses others believe the goverment has no buisness doing anything other than guarding the borders. Thier is NO "provable" right or wrong to any of these veiwpoints. They like all depend on ones philosphical beliefs. We are unlikly to agree on all of them. And we are unlikely to change each others minds of opinions we do not share.
Clearly some societies are more successful than others.
So we must find tangible measurmentsto use as yardsticks for the what societiess are "better".
What will these yardsticks be?;
1.wealth?
a. GPD?
b. GNP?
technical ability?
military power?

The point is who has the right to quantify cultural 'betterness'? You said yourself that it's unlikely we would ever get a unified opinion of what makes a culture great so why should we start using a specific set of values simply because they can be quantified? It is illogical to say that America's culture is better judging by only that which can be measured when we know full well that there are cultural traits that can make a society great that can't be measured. Things like minimal corruption and beurocracy, freedom of information, integrity of the press, efficiency of civil services, not just rule of law but balance of law. The bottom line is that quality of life for those that can afford it isn't enough for cultural comparrison. What you need is the way quality of life is affected by the actions of government for not only that nation's citizens, but the quality of life for everyone that nation interacts with (which in the US's case is pretty much everyone). There are those both inside and outside the US, that through which ever reasoning applies to their situation feel that the actions of the US government have lowered their overall quality of life and they're getting quite upset about it. This is why you simply cannot take two cultures, weigh up some figures and then decide which one is better and it is also where anti-us sentiment comes from.

[Aeolus]

The point is who has the right to quantify cultural 'betterness'? You said yourself that it's unlikely we would ever get a unified opinion of what makes a culture great so why should we start using a specific set of values simply because they can be quantified? It is illogical to say that America's culture is better judging by only that which can be measured when we know full well that there are cultural traits that can make a society great that can't be measured. Things like minimal corruption and beurocracy, freedom of information, integrity of the press, efficiency of civil services, not just rule of law but balance of law. The bottom line is that quality of life for those that can afford it isn't enough for cultural comparrison. What you need is the way quality of life is affected by the actions of government for not only that nation's citizens, but the quality of life for everyone that nation interacts with (which in the US's case is pretty much everyone). There are those both inside and outside the US, that through which ever reasoning applies to their situation feel that the actions of the US government have lowered their overall quality of life and they're getting quite upset about it. This is why you simply cannot take two cultures, weigh up some figures and then decide which one is better and it is also where anti-us sentiment comes from.

Are you suggesting that all societys are equal, none better or worse than any other?
If not then clearly some are better/more sucessful than others.
Since it is impossible to measure nontangible traits. We must then use tangible ones.
Northern European, Pacific Rim Asian, and North America are clearly successful societies. Some central African and central asian clearly are not. The only question is why.....
Is it mearly geographic? Is it blind chance? Is it both? If it were only these two factors then why is Japan so powerful and relativly speaking Brazil is not? I therefofe think that their must be a cultural factor here.
The only real question in my mind is what is it?

[The_Nice_Guy]

Name one country that had all these and didn't experience success (and before you say China, keep in mind that they didn't have the resources necessary to undergo an industrial revolution, and so fails the first condition).

Argentina. Argentina has a lot of advantages back at the beginning of the century, being a rich country and all(there was a oft used expression back then, something like 'as rich as an Argentine' or something). It also had plentiful natural resources and no real antagonist on its borders.

Next, it wasn't really involved in the World Wars. Uh, except for the little matter of the Falklands(but then it was messed up by then already).

And finally, look at it now. Compare to Japan, wrecked after WW2. Who had what? Who's more successful now?

Also, any number of African nations that were not situated in sub-Saharan regions can also make for evidence, though in those cases I would admit that western meddling had a huge part to play.

Still, I would say Ghana is a good example before the advent of AIDS. In 1957, it and South Korea were both basket cases, and had similar GDP, level of development etc. Ghana had huge natural advantages that South Korea did not have(as well as the absence of a massive army perched on its borders). Sure, South Korea had its own strengths, but back then everybody would have placed their bets on Ghana to come out first.

Now? Yup, South Korea still has a massive army perched on its borders(some things never change), but at least they're quite affluent(and their pretty girls... *drools*) but Ghana is still trying to dig itself out of its hole.

So what's the difference? Western meddling? The culture of the inhabitants? Value systems? Use Mill's Methods.

In conclusion, I would say that natural resources are enabling factors, but the culture of the people are the neccessary ones.

The Nice Guy

[The_Nice_Guy]

The point is who has the right to quantify cultural 'betterness'? You said yourself that it's unlikely we would ever get a unified opinion of what makes a culture great so why should we start using a specific set of values simply because they can be quantified? It is illogical to say that America's culture is better judging by only that which can be measured when we know full well that there are cultural traits that can make a society great that can't be measured. Things like minimal corruption and beurocracy, freedom of information, integrity of the press, efficiency of civil services, not just rule of law but balance of law. The bottom line is that quality of life for those that can afford it isn't enough for cultural comparrison. What you need is the way quality of life is affected by the actions of government for not only that nation's citizens, but the quality of life for everyone that nation interacts with (which in the US's case is pretty much everyone). There are those both inside and outside the US, that through which ever reasoning applies to their situation feel that the actions of the US government have lowered their overall quality of life and they're getting quite upset about it. This is why you simply cannot take two cultures, weigh up some figures and then decide which one is better and it is also where anti-us sentiment comes from.

I think there are some terminal values that should and can be applied across the board. Others like hard work, non-corruptability, efficiency, determination are instrumental values, and are rather less suitable measures of success(in other words, 'betterness'), as they are means, and not ends.

Values like happiness, freedom, security, pleasure, wisdom, peace(okay, okay, it's in short supply ) are good benchmarks of a society's superiority. Judging by this set of criteria, is there any reason why the US cannot be considered more successful than say, Syria?

I am troubled whenever somebody claims that all cultures can be equally successful if given the same material resources. Because I'm sure that isn't true.

The Nice Guy

[Spyder]

Are you suggesting that all societys are equal, none better or worse than any other?
If not then clearly some are better/more sucessful than others.
Since it is impossible to measure nontangible traits. We must then use tangible ones.
Northern European, Pacific Rim Asian, and North America are clearly successful societies. Some central African and central asian clearly are not. The only question is why.....
Is it mearly geographic? Is it blind chance? Is it both? If it were only these two factors then why is Japan so powerful and relativly speaking Brazil is not? I therefofe think that their must be a cultural factor here.
The only real question in my mind is what is it?

I am suggesting that if people stopped thinking of national cultures in the grossly simplified terms of 'superrior' and 'inferrior' then anti-americanism might be a little easier to understand, which is essentually what this thread is about. You cannot simply cast aside intangible factors in what makes a successful culture because they're an important part of the whole. Without those factors the conclusions based on the quantifiable figures remain highly questionable.

"We have a higher GDP, therefore we are better. Let us quietly ignore the fact that the culture responsible for this has also allowed for corruption, high crime rates and poor education."

I'm not going say that all cultures are equal, some clearly are not. What I am going to say is that very few are either qualified to make the judgement or in a position where they should.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I am suggesting that if people stopped thinking of national cultures in the grossly simplified terms of 'superrior' and 'inferrior' then anti-americanism might be a little easier to understand, which is essentually what this thread is about. You cannot simply cast aside intangible factors in what makes a successful culture because they're an important part of the whole. Without those factors the conclusions based on the quantifiable figures remain highly questionable.

"We have a higher GDP, therefore we are better. Let us quietly ignore the fact that the culture responsible for this has also allowed for corruption, high crime rates and poor education."

I'm not going say that all cultures are equal, some clearly are not. What I am going to say is that very few are either qualified to make the judgement or in a position where they should.

From our standpoint, what you're saying makes sense. However, from the standpoint of those who hate America(and I've talked to a few, especially Chinese), a great deal of their hatred comes from what I perceive as an inferiority complex. If nothing else, they regard the US culture as being more superior, due to all the stats, figures, stated.

But that superiority doesn't mean they'll like American culture. In fact, it's a combination of self loathing and jealousy. Why can't they do it? Why haven't they reached that level?

It's not about what you think. It's what they think. It doesn't make sense for us, but it makes sense for them.

You honestly think they'll look at the US and cite corruption, high crime rates, and poor education to justify their own way of life when the fruits of American success often stares them right in the face at the same time? Sure, we know it's not totally superior, but they know better.

Or do they?

The Nice Guy

[Spyder]

From our standpoint, what you're saying makes sense. However, from the standpoint of those who hate America(and I've talked to a few, especially Chinese), a great deal of their hatred comes from what I perceive as an inferiority complex. If nothing else, they regard the US culture as being more superior, due to all the stats, figures, stated.

But that superiority doesn't mean they'll like American culture. In fact, it's a combination of self loathing and jealousy. Why can't they do it? Why haven't they reached that level?

It's not about what you think. It's what they think. It doesn't make sense for us, but it makes sense for them.

You honestly think they'll look at the US and cite corruption, high crime rates, and poor education to justify their own way of life when the fruits of American success often stares them right in the face at the same time? Sure, we know it's not totally superior, but they know better.

Or do they?

The Nice Guy

Well, that's pretty much my point; that anti-americanism can stem from both inferriority and the perception of a superiority complex.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I'm pretty sure the inferiority complex exists. There's not much the US can do about it.

However, it can do something about its own superiority complex. The most glaring example was the spyplane incident two years back.

A less heavy handed approach in international politics might help too, except that right now, perception of the US for those already biased towards it is so bad that anything it does is regarded as self serving.

If the Americans withdraw back into their own continent, they'll be regarded as selfish pricks who do not care for the rest of the world. If they take action to liberate any shithole for any reason whatsoever(even if sanctioned by the UN), then they're regarded as bullies. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

As for the economic signs of success, like McDonalds, Starbucks, and MTV, well, it has nothing to do with the US government per se, but it still contributes to the inferiority complex. That can't be helped.

In the end, I still think that even if the American government, by some miracle, manages to minimize the superiority effect, the inferiority complex of the rest if the world would still be more than sufficient for widespread anti-americanism.

The Nice Guy

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Name one country that had all these and didn't experience success (and before you say China, keep in mind that they didn't have the resources necessary to undergo an industrial revolution, and so fails the first condition).

Argentina. Argentina has a lot of advantages back at the beginning of the century, being a rich country and all(there was a oft used expression back then, something like 'as rich as an Argentine' or something). It also had plentiful natural resources and no real antagonist on its borders.

Next, it wasn't really involved in the World Wars. Uh, except for the little matter of the Falklands(but then it was messed up by then already).

And finally, look at it now. Compare to Japan, wrecked after WW2. Who had what? Who's more successful now?

Ever been to Argentina? I haven't, but my dad has, and he assured me that it was a first world country, Buenos Aires being indistinguishable from a European metropolis. Sure, it hasn't been as successfull as the US and Japan, and its current economic straits are bad, but to say that it hasn't had success is pushing it.

Also, any number of African nations that were not situated in sub-Saharan regions can also make for evidence, though in those cases I would admit that western meddling had a huge part to play.

Still, I would say Ghana is a good example before the advent of AIDS. In 1957, it and South Korea were both basket cases, and had similar GDP, level of development etc. Ghana had huge natural advantages that South Korea did not have(as well as the absence of a massive army perched on its borders). Sure, South Korea had its own strengths, but back then everybody would have placed their bets on Ghana to come out first.

Now? Yup, South Korea still has a massive army perched on its borders(some things never change), but at least they're quite affluent(and their pretty girls... *drools*) but Ghana is still trying to dig itself out of its hole.

So what's the difference? Western meddling? The culture of the inhabitants? Value systems? Use Mill's Methods.

In conclusion, I would say that natural resources are enabling factors, but the culture of the people are the neccessary ones.

The Nice Guy

I can't say anything about Ghana, as I know nothing about the country and would just be talking out my ass, but even if what you say about it is true, and their lack of success is indeed due to cultural factors, that's only 1 exception. And where did this culture come from, exactly? Genetics? Or does it come from the circumstances a people finds themselves in (ie. geology and ecology)?

[The_Nice_Guy]

Ever been to Argentina? I haven't, but my dad has, and he assured me that it was a first world country, Buenos Aires being indistinguishable from a European metropolis. Sure, it hasn't been as successfull as the US and Japan, and its current economic straits are bad, but to say that it hasn't had success is pushing it.

Well, in comparison to many other countries, it really hasn't been successful, especially when you consider the sheer advantages it had as a country. Not a lot of countries get mentions as 'having rich natural resources' in the CIA worldbook. And even fewer started off already rich in the previous century.

If anything, it could have been as rich as France, Germany, or even the US. Definitely not behind Japan.

I can't say anything about Ghana, as I know nothing about the country and would just be talking out my ass, but even if what you say about it is true, and their lack of success is indeed due to cultural factors, that's only 1 exception. And where did this culture come from, exactly? Genetics? Or does it come from the circumstances a people finds themselves in (ie. geology and ecology)?

That's not the exception. That's the rule. I've given you two good examples where geographical advantages turned out to be nothing when compared to 'intangibles' such as culture. There're some more, but they're mostly in Africa(Liberia comes to mind, though there's a strong case there for colonial manipulation). Then there're the poorest suckers of all, those without both geographical advantages, and it seems, the will to make something for themselves(Pacific Isles, some parts of Africa, Asia).

Most countries that have made it, more or less had both advantages. A good geographical location, and a good culture. You'll be hard pressed to find a successful nation with the former(the oil states do not count!), but not the latter. Conversely, you can find many countries without the former, but with the latter(only with hindsight tho).

So how did that culture come about? If you believe the Germs, Guns, and Steel theory, that culture was the product of geology and ecology. However, I believe that the vagaries of history had the single greatest effect on culture. In the end, it was down to blind, unthinking chance and the willpower of several great men that led a people down one path or the other.

For example, the history of China was determined centuries when Qin Shi Huang became the first emperor, forever setting a dynastic example that future chinese rulers would emulate, instead of the city state system that developed in Greece. In fact, you could even argue that the vast distances in China would be even more conducive to such a city state system!

Similarly, what if a greek state had achieved total conquest early on in their many wars? What a world of difference!

It's very hard to pin down what creates culture, but I'd say geography had very little to do with it. If so, we could place two identical peoples in two identical places, and expect them to develop identically. That this does not happen, tells us that there's a great deal going on that we can never measure.

The Nice Guy

[Aeolus]

Ever been to Argentina? I haven't, but my dad has, and he assured me that it was a first world country, Buenos Aires being indistinguishable from a European metropolis. Sure, it hasn't been as successfull as the US and Japan, and its current economic straits are bad, but to say that it hasn't had success is pushing it.

Well, in comparison to many other countries, it really hasn't been successful, especially when you consider the sheer advantages it had as a country. Not a lot of countries get mentions as 'having rich natural resources' in the CIA worldbook. And even fewer started off already rich in the previous century.

If anything, it could have been as rich as France, Germany, or even the US. Definitely not behind Japan.

Pre World War 1 Argentina was assumed to be on course to Great Power status. Today it's no 3rd world hell hole, but it's no great power either.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Well, in comparison to many other countries, it really hasn't been successful, especially when you consider the sheer advantages it had as a country. Not a lot of countries get mentions as 'having rich natural resources' in the CIA worldbook. And even fewer started off already rich in the previous century.

If anything, it could have been as rich as France, Germany, or even the US. Definitely not behind Japan.

Japan was situated where it could trade with all of SE Asia, and now with the US. Geology advantages don't just mean natural resources. Indeed, the importance of the resources themselves is trivial next to good transportation. Besides, even if I granted that Argentina isn't experiencing success right now, they have in the past, which proves my point.

That's not the exception. That's the rule. I've given you two good examples where geographical advantages turned out to be nothing when compared to 'intangibles' such as culture.

You gave one example that I refuted, and one I didn't know enough about to contest. Also, I love the way you assume that any 'intangible' factor must be culture.

There're some more, but they're mostly in Africa(Liberia comes to mind, though there's a strong case there for colonial manipulation). Then there're the poorest suckers of all, those without both geographical advantages, and it seems, the will to make something for themselves(Pacific Isles, some parts of Africa, Asia).

Most countries that have made it, more or less had both advantages. A good geographical location, and a good culture. You'll be hard pressed to find a successful nation with the former(the oil states do not count!), but not the latter. Conversely, you can find many countries without the former, but with the latter(only with hindsight tho).

Thanks for proving my point. Good geological and ecological situation typically goes hand in hand with progressive culture. Therefore situation determines culture, as I've been saying.

So how did that culture come about? If you believe the Germs, Guns, and Steel theory, that culture was the product of geology and ecology. However, I believe that the vagaries of history had the single greatest effect on culture. In the end, it was down to blind, unthinking chance and the willpower of several great men that led a people down one path or the other.

Apparently, you think "However, I believe" is an adequete refutation of a theory.

For example, the history of China was determined centuries when Qin Shi Huang became the first emperor, forever setting a dynastic example that future chinese rulers would emulate, instead of the city state system that developed in Greece. In fact, you could even argue that the vast distances in China would be even more conducive to such a city state system!

Similarly, what if a greek state had achieved total conquest early on in their many wars? What a world of difference!

It's very hard to pin down what creates culture, but I'd say geography had very little to do with it. If so, we could place two identical peoples in two identical places, and expect them to develop identically. That this does not happen, tells us that there's a great deal going on that we can never measure.

What do you mean, "that this doesn't happen"? Since when have two peoples ever been in identical situations, and why wouldn't they develop identically?