NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering what is the public opinion of which Nation had the best forefounding fathers. Just curious after watching the documentary "Rise of the Great Powers".

My Vote goes to the United States, they had (in my view) the best! :D

If i could choose a second it would be Germany...

My Vote goes to the Greeks and Romans...since they're the originals

I quite like Ben Franklin, so my vote goes to the US. Most of the others from the US, I don't care for that much though.

The German ones were so violent and autocratic. In fact, that's true for almost all of the other nations.

And the newer countries, well, their problem is that we actually know what their founding fathers (or mothers) were like, so we remember all their flaws and wrong decisions, alá Nehru dynasty.

Like this is going to be anything but a US-fest. Most countries don't even HAVE "Founding Fathers" as such - just a lucky soldier or some rightplace-righttime politicians.

Given that the US system produced the richest and most powerful country that has ever existed, I'd have to say that our founding fathers are probably the best of all. In a close second would be the founders of the former Soviet Union, who achieved a similarly remarkable transformation in even less time, even if the system was ultimately doomed to failure.

My Vote goes to the Greeks and Romans...since they're the originals

What about ol' Narmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer)? I'd say he's pretty original.
Unless you wanna go back to the Kings of Sumer, but its hard to tell which of them was the original, since the supposed founder apparently ruled for 28,000 years or so.

my vote goes for the US.

Like this is going to be anything but a US-fest. Most countries don't even HAVE "Founding Fathers" as such - just a lucky soldier or some rightplace-righttime politicians.

QFT

Our (American) Founding Fathers were pretty badass, I'll say, since they were each for the most part impressive as individuals, rather than simply as part of the government, and risked certain or near-certain death for their cause.

So that's my vote, although I'm not sure who the other candidates are, really. France pre-Charlemagne is sort of a blur to me, and Italy isn't on the list (I kinda like the whole Remus and Romulus story - wild stuff). I have no idea who the founding fathers of Canada might be, etc.

Oh, also! For any of you out there still in school: strike the phrase "Founding Fathers" from your vocabulary until you graduate. I was once given a C- score on an A-worthy term paper for using the phrase, rather than whatever gender-neutral term my (female) history teacher demanded. No other fault with the paper. Watch out for that.

Pericles.

Does anybody apart from the US even have founding fathers? Most nations grew naturally and weren't spawned by a handful of zealots... :rolleyes:

Does anybody apart from the US even have founding fathers? Most nations grew naturally and weren't spawned by a handful of zealots... :rolleyes:

Heh! I think I detect a little condescension there, yes? :p Remember that 'extremism in defense of liberty is no vice,' to quote a latter-day patriot. ;)

Does anybody apart from the US even have founding fathers? Most nations grew naturally and weren't spawned by a handful of zealots... :rolleyes:
Well 'founding fathers' is a distinctly American idea, all modern countries have their first PM or President who is regarded that way, in my country Edmond Barton and the drafters of the Constitution are regarded as Australia's founding fathers, although no one would even know who they are these days. The difference between my country and the US is that to get independence and democracy we asked nicely and were patient, and that we eventually got it, rather than of course resorting the violence.

Well 'founding fathers' is a distinctly American idea, all modern countries have their first PM or President who is regarded that way, in my country Edmond Barton and the drafters of the Constitution are regarded as Australia's founding fathers, although no one would even know who they are these days. The difference between my country and the US is that to get independence and democracy we asked nicely and were patient, and that we eventually got it, rather than of course resorting the violence.

Erm... no. There are some figures at different stages in most countries histories that shaped the course the country would take, but they are not regarded as founders usually. Just as figures in a long line of figures. A very long line of figures.
Or who would you claim was the founding father of England? Alfred the Great? William the Conqueror? King John? Elisabeth I?
Who is the founding father of France? Charles Matell? Charlemagne? Napoleon?
Who is the founding father of Germany? Arminius? Charlemagne? Friedrich the Great? Napoleon? Bismark? Adenauer?
Who is the founding father of Italy? Romulus and Remus? Justinian? The Medici? Giuseppe Garibaldi?

As a Frenchman, I would be hard-pressed to say who France's "Forefounding Fathers" (or "Mothers", for that matter) were. Who / what had you in mind, Kansiov? :confused: Charles le Chauve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Verdun)? Our first ancestors 200,000 years ago? Vercingétorix? Clovis I? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I) When was France founded? 486? Our history is long and complex, making it difficult to say clearly who our "main" "forefounding ancestors" may have been.

The problem is similar for the UK, compounded by the fact that the UK is composed of several nations. There have been people living there for a long time. Where do you start? 1066? 1707? 1801? A lot earlier?

Forefounding fathers could mean people who are used to be the ruler of the country, and did a great job in ruling the Nation. Each Nation has its starting point, i can't give a date.

As a Frenchman, I would be hard-pressed to say who France's "Forefounding Fathers" (or "Mothers", for that matter) were. Who / what had you in mind, Kansiov? :confused: Charles le Chauve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Verdun)? Our first ancestors 200,000 years ago? Vercingétorix? Clovis I? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I) When was France founded? 486? Our history is long and complex, making it difficult to say clearly who our "main" "forefounding ancestors" may have been.

The problem is similar for the UK, compounded by the fact that the UK is composed of several nations. There have been people living there for a long time. Where do you start? 1066? 1707? 1801? A lot earlier?

Erm... no. There are some figures at different stages in most countries histories that shaped the course the country would take, but they are not regarded as founders usually. Just as figures in a long line of figures. A very long line of figures.
Or who would you claim was the founding father of England? Alfred the Great? William the Conqueror? King John? Elisabeth I?
Who is the founding father of France? Charles Matell? Charlemagne? Napoleon?
Who is the founding father of Germany? Arminius? Charlemagne? Friedrich the Great? Napoleon? Bismark? Adenauer?
Who is the founding father of Italy? Romulus and Remus? Justinian? The Medici? Giuseppe Garibaldi?
No, what I mean is that the founding fathers can sometimes be the founder of the the whole actual continued modern state that the people live in today, such as the State of Israel, African Republics etc. So it relates of course alot more not to ancient historical continued peoples/nations but to the modern emergence of the nationstate republic. Germans no longer live in the Holy Roman Empire, and Russians no longer in the Russian Empire.

Forefounding fathers could mean people who are used to be the ruler of the country, and did a great job in ruling the Nation. Each Nation has its starting point, i can't give a date.

See, that's where you're wrong. Very few nations have a starting point. If you take a look at Germany, it was Neanderthals, then Cro-Magnons, growing from family groups to tribes to large tribes, some conquered by the Romans, some blocked from the Roman Empire by the Limus; once Rome fell Charlemange unified the tribes living in modern France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and parts of Italy and Austria. His heirs became Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, which remained in place basically until Napoleon took over and re-distributed and re-arranged the governing system. That was taken one step further later on by Bismark, who centralised the Empire. After WWI, the Weimar Republicc wa sfounded which was soon after remodeled by Adolf Hitler. The constituation for the Republic after the war was accepted in 1949 (I'm sure there was a comitee about that, but I've got no idea who was on it). The first chancellor after the war was Konrad Adenauer.

Now, you tell me : Who founded Germany???

The difference between my country and the US is that to get independence and democracy we asked nicely and were patient, and that we eventually got it, rather than of course resorting the violence.

A tad revisionist of you, AP. ;) Most historians of Australia agree that Australia wasn't really asking for independence at all, and was initially not all that eager about it. You did ratify the Statute of Westminster earlier than New Zealand did, but you didn't rush to do it.

Although that raises the question... When do you consider Australia to have become independent? 1942, or some other date? 1901?

You're quite right, of course, that Australia's independence happened smoothly and with good feelings between Australia and the UK. Which, interestingly enough, characterised the access to independence of most former British colonies in the Pacific.

As a Frenchman, I would be hard-pressed to say who France's "Forefounding Fathers" (or "Mothers", for that matter) were. Who / what had you in mind, Kansiov? :confused: Charles le Chauve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Verdun)? Our first ancestors 200,000 years ago? Vercingétorix? Clovis I? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_I) When was France founded? 486? Our history is long and complex, making it difficult to say clearly who our "main" "forefounding ancestors" may have been.

For France I would say someone like de Gaulle since he was the first president of the Fifth Republic. As far as founding fathers I would assume he means the people who founded the current government of their nation. And since the United States is one of the oldest governments in the world I think its fair to say that we win this contest.

No, what I mean is that the founding fathers can sometimes be the founder of the the whole actual continued modern state that the people live in today, such as the State of Israel, African Republics etc. So it relates of course alot more not to ancient historical continued peoples/nations but to the modern emergence of the nationstate republic. Germans no longer live in the Holy Roman Empire, and Russians no longer in the Russian Empire.

No, but Germany today is still very heavily influenced by the Holy Roman Empire. There's a reason why the Laender have so much sovereignity local politics, unlike the French departement, for example. It's silly and ingnorant to simply draw a line at some point in history and declare it the begining, and whoever hang around the line a founding father.

For France I would say someone like de Gaulle since he was the first president of the Fifth Republic. As far as founding fathers I would assume he means the people who founded the current government of their nation. And since the United States is one of the oldest governments in the world I think its fair to say that we win this contest.

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

What about Japan?
What about the UK?
What about Thailand?
What about Saudi Arabia?

Don't be so arrogant. There are governments that are centuries older than yours.

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

What about Japan?
What about the UK?
What about Thailand?
What about Saudi Arabia?

Don't be so arrogant. There are governments that are centuries older than yours.

Really? Japan's current government was created after world war two, the UK's as we now know it was created after the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922, Thailand hasn't had a continuous government since 1932, and Saudi Arabia was unified in 1932. Iceland however has had a continuous government since 930 I think.

A tad revisionist of you, AP. ;) Most historians of Australia agree that Australia wasn't really asking for independence at all, and was initially not all that eager about it. You did ratify the Statute of Westminster earlier than New Zealand did, but you didn't rush to do it.

Although that raises the question... When do you consider Australia to have become independent? 1942, or some other date? 1901?

You're quite right, of course, that Australia's independence happened smoothly and with good feelings between Australia and the UK. Which, interestingly enough, characterised the access to independence of most former British colonies in the Pacific.

And your calling me revisionist... Federation of course made us independent, it meant that the Imperial office at Westminster was no longer directly administrating the countries as Crown colonies, although after Federation we remained a Commonwealth realm, the GG and state governors are merely figure heads, and although the Constitutional Crisis has a little worrying, from all experience they seem to have remained impartial.

Not trying to sound arrogant, but I like the Australian governmental system quite a lot, I think having an apolitical head of state and a limited head of govt role (who has to appear and debate in parliament) and cabinet makes the system more accountable. I do prefer some aspects of the US system though, political parties in the US aren't disciplined coherent entities like they are here, it matters more about the individual than anything, which means that your upper house can actually work as a 'states house', while ours can't because disciplined parties (in which you get booted from them if you vote against the 'party line') stop reps from making decisions based on the interests of their specific constituency.

Also having a directly elected President (although I think he's too powerful) from anyone in the public is good I think. But what I do like about the Aus system is that the ministries are non-professional, anyone can be in charge of the defense force without being a general, anyone can be in charge of the health dept without being a doctor or whatever, while this isn't in the case in the US. I think having 'professionals' is elitist and oligarchic in nature.

Really? Japan's current government was created after world war two, the UK's as we now know it was created after the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922, Thailand hasn't had a continuous government since 1932, and Saudi Arabia was unified in 1932. Iceland however has had a continuous government since 930 I think.

Japan's been a monarchy for long before that, the UK only lost territory but didn't change it's government, and Thailand and Saudi-Arabia have had the same dynasties since the 18th century. if you are going to take every small change to a government as a complete new founding of the country, then the US can be said to have been founded in 1964 when universal suffrage was enforced.

Our (American) Founding Fathers were pretty badass, I'll say, since they were each for the most part impressive as individuals, rather than simply as part of the government, and risked certain or near-certain death for their cause.

So that's my vote, although I'm not sure who the other candidates are, really. France pre-Charlemagne is sort of a blur to me, and Italy isn't on the list (I kinda like the whole Remus and Romulus story - wild stuff). I have no idea who the founding fathers of Canada might be, etc.

Romulus was the founder of Rome.
As modern Italy's "Founding Fathers" you should consider Mazzini, Cavour and Garibaldi.

Oh, also! For any of you out there still in school: strike the phrase "Founding Fathers" from your vocabulary until you graduate. I was once given a C- score on an A-worthy term paper for using the phrase, rather than whatever gender-neutral term my (female) history teacher demanded. No other fault with the paper. Watch out for that.

I get SOO much tired at US political correctness...
Those people were all men, thus the "Founding Fathers" phrase. Unless your teacher had information otherwise her clinging to political correctness is just pathetic.

Totally ridiculous poll. Deciding who is founding father is extremely problematical in most of those cases. Like who is founding father of Russia. Some importnant guy in Kievan Rus, someone in Moscow(cant rememeber importnant guys from those), Peter the Great, Lenin or Yeltsin? Same applies, to Germany, France, UK, Spain and Portugal.

Olmedreca;13071142']Totally ridiculous poll. Deciding who is founding father is extremely problematical in most of those cases. Like who is founding father of Russia. Some importnant guy in Kievan Rus, someone in Moscow(cant rememeber importnant guys from those), Peter the Great, Lenin or Yeltsin? Same applies, to Germany, France, UK, Spain and Portugal.
Well that's an easy answer, just ask a Russian. Yeltsin did more damage to the Russian economy than Hitler, over a million died and most of the population impoverished or unemployed because of his policies, there's a reason why traitors like Gorbachev and Yeltsin are admired abroad for 'bringing democracy' yet their own people hate their guts. I would say Putin is the true founder.

For France I would say someone like de Gaulle since he was the first president of the Fifth Republic.

That doesn't make much sense, though. Nobody considers there was no France before the Fifth Republic. It was a new system of government, but applied to a pre-existing sovereign geopolitical entity.


And since the United States is one of the oldest governments in the world I think its fair to say that we win this contest.

If that's your reasoning, San Marino wins this contest, by a long, long way.

the UK's as we now know it was created after the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1922,

Eh... No. 1922 changed little of substance to the UK's government. The UK was born in 1801, Great Britain as a political entity in 1707 (although England and Scotland started sharing a monarch when the Scottish King became King of England in 1603), but in 1707 and 1801 the result was essentially the application of the English political system to a wider area. And that was arguably born from the 1688 Glorious Revolution.

And your calling me revisionist... Federation of course made us independent,

you're*

I was asking you when you consider Australia to have become independent. The answer is not an obvious one. Independence was essentially achieved in 1901, but as I said the Statute of Westminster wasn't ratified until 1942. Before that, Australia was (mostly) self-governing; whether it was "independent" is a matter of definition. Remember Australia technically had no independent foreign affairs policy before 1942.

Really? Japan's current government was created after world war two.
If you really want to be correct, the current constitution was made after WWII (Written by Americans), however it heavily borrowed from the forms of government instituted during the Meiji Restoration. Japan does have people it considers its founding fathers (For modern day Japan) from that period and they were some remarkable people.

Of course, Japan, as Cabra says, also traces its existence as a nation back quite a bit longer.

Japan's been a monarchy for long before that,
And is Japan an absoulte monarchy now? No? Was there some kind of odd deal at the end of WWII that allowed the emperor to keep absolute power?

the UK only lost territory but didn't change it's government,
Then lets look at the Act of Union shall we? 1801? I guess that still makes the United States older.

Thailand have had the same dynasties since the 18th century
Irrelevant. The absolute monarchy was disolved in 1932. And since then they haven't had a stable government.

Saudi-Arabia have had the same dynasties since the 18th century.
As a government and nation, Saudi Arabia was declared in 1926, recognized in 1927, and unified in 1932.

Dynasties != continuous government.

if you are going to take every small change to a government as a complete new founding of the country, then the US can be said to have been founded in 1964 when universal suffrage was enforced.
:rolleyes: If you were arguing for oldest states, then you would be right, but we're talking about governments.

If you really want to be correct, the current constitution was made after WWII (Written by Americans), however it heavily borrowed from the forms of government instituted during the Meiji Restoration. Japan does have people it considers its founding fathers (For modern day Japan) from that period and they were some remarkable people.

Of course, Japan, as Cabra says, also traces its existence as a nation back quite a bit longer.

And if we were arguing about oldest nations, then you would be right.

:rolleyes: If you were arguing for oldest states, then you would be right, but we're talking about governments.

Exactly. And a constitutional change regarding who gets to vote would, in my eyes at least, constitute a change of the way a nation is governed.
Or are you saying a change in the constitution makes every country a new nation, apart from the US?

And is Japan an absoulte monarchy now? No? Was there some kind of odd deal at the end of WWII that allowed the emperor to keep absolute power?

And if we were arguing about oldest nations, then you would be right.
You're still wrong, the GOVERNMENT of Japan did not change after WWII. A new constitution was adopted, but the government itself did not change. The current government of Japan dates back to 1890, not 1947.

And if we were arguing about oldest nations, then you would be right.

We are arguing that most nations have no founding fathers because their foundation happened in stages.

:rolleyes: If you were arguing for oldest states, then you would be right, but we're talking about governments.

So you're saying San Marino has the best forefounding fathers, yes?

Forefounding fathers could mean people who are used to be the ruler of the country, and did a great job in ruling the Nation. Each Nation has its starting point, i can't give a date.

i think that's the exact point. many nations don't have a 'starting point', but rather an evolution from one state to another over time.

i mean, Britian was created in the Act Of Union with Scotland in 1707, but before then there had been the Union of the Crowns 100 years earlier. but of course England was 'created' (unified) by Alfred the Great's successors over a long period, but was then lost to the Danes and - of course - later the Normans in 1066. the structure of our country (in US terms, i guess, our consitution) was fought for by Cromwell, but it took centuries then to solidify parliament's power. there really is no one defining moment, act of legislature, or person who created this country in my mind.

So you're saying San Marino has the best forefounding fathers, yes?

Hm, no, I don't think I will. If you will go back and look at my original post I said:

United States is one of the oldest governments

(emphasis on the bold part)


Not, the oldest.

I should have worded it better, but I was not implying that we are the oldest government, therefore we have the best founding fathers. Rather, that we've come along way from colonies to become the remaining superpower in the world. Our founding fathers gave us a system of government that was conducive for growth and success. Not many nations can say that their original government has survived and prospered like ours has, and that is what I based my decision on.

Hm, no, I don't think I will. If you will go back and look at my original post I said:



Not, the oldest.

I should have worded it better, but I was not implying that we are the oldest government, therefore we have the best founding fathers. Rather, that we've come along way from colonies to become the remaining superpower in the world. Our founding fathers gave us a system of government that was conducive for growth and success. Not many nations can say that their original government has survived and prospered like ours has, and that is what I based my decision on.

*lol
Most nations never HAD an original government. That is the whole point people here are making. Which makes this thread an extremely stupid and ignorant one.

You're still wrong, the GOVERNMENT of Japan did not change after WWII. A new constitution was adopted, but the government itself did not change. The current government of Japan dates back to 1890, not 1947.

I'm looking at the wiki pages for the Meiji constitution, and the current one and they seem to be radically different.

The Constitution of the Empire of Japan (Kyūjitai: 大日本帝國憲法 Shinjitai: 大日本帝国憲法 Dai-Nippon Teikoku Kenpō?), more commonly known as the Imperial or Meiji Constitution, was the fundamental law of the Empire of Japan from 29 November 1890 until 2 May 1947. Enacted after the Meiji Ishin, it provided for a form of constitutional monarchy based on the Prussian model, in which the Emperor of Japan was an active ruler and wielded considerable political power, but shared this with an elected diet.

Compared to the current constitution:

The Constitution of Japan (Shinjitai: 日本国憲法 Kyūjitai: 日本國憲法 Nihon-Koku Kenpō?) has been the founding legal document of Japan since 1947. The constitution provides for a parliamentary system of government and guarantees certain fundamental rights. Under its terms the Emperor of Japan is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people" and exercises a purely ceremonial role without the possession of sovereignty. Thus, unlike other monarchs, he is not formally the head of state[1] although he is portrayed and treated as though he were. The constitution, also called "the Pacifist Constitution ( 平和憲法 Heiwa-Kenpō?)", is most characteristic and famous for the renunciation of the right to wage war contained in Article 9 and to a lesser extent, the provision for de jure popular sovereignty in conjunction with the monarchy.

If I'm reading this correctly, then the government did change after world war two. The Emperor was removed as an active leader, and as the head of state. Or are these trivial differences?

Most of those countries don't have founding fathers, at least not in the American sense. The UK doesn't even have a date at which one could say the country came about, it could be as varied as 1535 to 1800 (or even 1922).

If I'm reading this correctly, then the government did change after world war two. The Emperor was removed as an active leader, and as the head of state. Or are these trivial differences?

Is it a trivial difference to increase one's electorate by more than 50% by letting women and non-whites vote?

*lol
Most nations never HAD an original government. That is the whole point people here are making. Which makes this thread an extremely stupid and ignorant one.

Oh....

So you're saying this whole thing was rigged as an American popularity contest?

Hm, no, I don't think I will. If you will go back and look at my original post I said:



Not, the oldest.

I should have worded it better, but I was not implying that we are the oldest government, therefore we have the best founding fathers. Rather, that we've come along way from colonies to become the remaining superpower in the world. Our founding fathers gave us a system of government that was conducive for growth and success. Not many nations can say that their original government has survived and prospered like ours has, and that is what I based my decision on.
Looks reasonable. With that logic, even Belgium can compete with the USA. :)

We've come a very long way from to become one of the best places to live in in the world. Our founding fathers gave us a system of government that was conducive for extreme growth and success. Not many nations can say that their original government has survived and prospered like ours has, and that is what I based my agreement on

Oh....

So you're saying this whole thing was rigged as an American popularity contest?

I wouldn't call it rigged... to rig something like that would mean you're aware that the nation you promote is the only one qualifying.
I think it's just a lovely little example of national egocentricity and ignorance, really.

Is it a trivial difference to increase one's electorate by more than 50% by letting women and non-whites vote?

There you go again. The government did not change, the constitution was not torn up and replaced by a new document (it was amended), so it was not a change of government. I never argued that constitutional amendments represented a change of government.

I wouldn't call it rigged... to rig something like that would mean you're aware that the nation you promote is the only one qualifying.
I think it's just a lovely little example of national egocentricity and ignorance, really.

Perhaps I was a little harsh. Still, I feel a bit silly now for taking this seriously. Although when you put it that way it seems to put the United States at an advantage to other nations.

There you go again. The government did not change, the constitution was not torn up and replaced by a new document (it was amended), so it was not a change of government. I never argued that constitutional amendments represented a change of government.

Either way, neither situation qualify as founding an entirely new nation. If that was the case each time a constitution was re-written, Germany now would have no reason whatsoever to pay reparations to Israel ;)

Germany wasn't founded after WWII, and neither was Japan. Very few nations in the planet were ever consciously founded, most "evolved" (for lack of a better word). To draw an arbitrary line somewhere at a major event in a nation's history and call it the founding date makes little sense to most people.

Perhaps I was a little harsh. Still, I feel a bit silly now for taking this seriously. Although when you put it that way it seems to put the United States at an advantage to other nations.

*lol In much the same way that the US has a distinct advantage over most nations when playing American football. ;)
It's easy to win when you're the only one playing.

Well bugger me, just because the USA has "founding fathers", and the OP takes no interest in affirs beyind the US, every nation has the self same figures?

For that matter, I would select Osman I. He precipitated perhaps the greatest threat to the Latin west since the Germanic invasions of the early middle ages, and did so through achieving dominance over numerous Ghazi emirates in Anatolia, and cowing a Byzantine empire that, though in decline, was still a significant force in the Levant.

I'm looking at the wiki pages for the Meiji constitution, and the current one and they seem to be radically different.



Compared to the current constitution:



If I'm reading this correctly, then the government did change after world war two. The Emperor was removed as an active leader, and as the head of state. Or are these trivial differences?
Wow, I didn't know that, that's even more restricted than say Britain. I don't really see a need for it however, it wasn't the Emperor who brought them to war , it was the Tojo's gang of military thugs who took over the parliament.

I'm leaning towards Liechtenstein. Yes, Liechtenstein. They somehow managed to stay independent in World War 2, despite being a 61-square mile country that (along with Switzerland) was completely surrounded by Axis-controlled land. You have to give them credit for that!

Very few nations in the planet were ever consciously founded, most "evolved" (for lack of a better word).

Actually, that's not really true. A majority of the world's nations are the product of decolonisation. The "nation-state" is a product of European (more specifically, French) history, which decolonised lands had little option but to adopt at independence, despite the fact that their pre-colonial political systems were often very different to Europe's.

I'm looking at the wiki pages for the Meiji constitution, and the current one and they seem to be radically different.



Compared to the current constitution:



If I'm reading this correctly, then the government did change after world war two. The Emperor was removed as an active leader, and as the head of state. Or are these trivial differences?
Only if you then say that the US was not founded on July 4, 1776, but on September 17, 1787. The government established under the Meiji Constitution was never dissolved or overthrown. It adopted the new constitution and evolved. It admits to being the same government. Just as when the US Constitution was adopted, succeeding the Articles of Confederation, the United States did not disappear and then re-appear as a brand new nation. Nor did the government as led by the Continental Congress suddenly disappear and the new Federal Government came out of nowhere.

Japan's current system of government dates back to the Meiji Era when the Meiji Constitution was established.

Wow, I didn't know that, that's even more restricted than say Britain. I don't really see a need for it however, it wasn't the Emperor who brought them to war , it was the Tojo's gang of military thugs who took over the parliament.
That's... so off I'm not sure where to actually begin with it.

Please read:
Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan
Embracing Defeat: Japan After World War II

for basic background. I'd also recommend, Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, though it's really dense.

Wow, I didn't know that, that's even more restricted than say Britain. I don't really see a need for it however, it wasn't the Emperor who brought them to war , it was the Tojo's gang of military thugs who took over the parliament.

I wrote out a really long post about this, but I accidentally closed the tab when I tried to go back to watching human tetris.

Anyway...

This is a common misconception that Hirohito was innocent of sending Japan down the path of imperialism and militarism. The decision to remove him as a leader and a head of state was also based on other things like his God status rather than his resposibility in the war. To charge him as a war criminal was not an option in the post war period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito

There are also some books on this subject by Japanese and Western authors.

It really is an amazing system you have in the United States.

Countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea spend billions on censoring their populations and restricting their knowledge about the rest of the world, but fail completely.

Yet somehow, without any direct restrictions, the US keeps its population in complete ignorance about the rest of the world. You have to give some respect to such a brilliantly efficient system of control. It's a work of genius.

Only if you then say that the US was not founded on July 4, 1776, but on September 17, 1787. The government established under the Meiji Constitution was never dissolved or overthrown. It adopted the new constitution and evolved. It admits to being the same government.

Just as when the US Constitution was adopted, succeeding the Articles of Confederation, the United States did not disappear and then re-appear as a brand new nation. Nor did the government as led by the Continental Congress suddenly disappear and the new Federal Government came out of nowhere.
Governments will change, but the nation will remain. Which is of course, what I was originally arguing. If you will look at my other posts I never said that the adoption of a new government signifies the creation of a new nation.

Saying the current Japanese government is the same as the Meiji one seems a bit silly to me, but I'll take your word for it since you live in Japan.

Like this is going to be anything but a US-fest. Most countries don't even HAVE "Founding Fathers" as such - just a lucky soldier or some rightplace-righttime politicians.

And what is a "Founding Father", if not a lucky soldier (like Washington) or a rightplace-righttime politician (like Jefferson)?

Anyway, about Italy:

lucky "soldiers":
Vittorio Emanuele II di Savoia, King of Sardinia, afterwards King of Italy
Giuseppe Garibaldi (the "Hero of Two Worlds"), general, socialist, national hero

the rightplace-righttime politicians:
Camillo Benso, Conte di Cavour, PM, founder of the Italian State

after WW2:
De Gasperi (leader of the DC), Togliatti (leader of the PCI), Nenni (leader of the PSI), and many other partisans and anti-fascists, including future President of the Republic Sandro Pertini (PSI).

Who is the founding father of Italy? Romulus and Remus? Justinian? The Medici? Giuseppe Garibaldi?

Well... we could also nominate the Visconti, the Sforza, the Gonzaga, the Este, the Savoia, Bonaparte, Maria Theresa von Oesterreich, Manzoni, Giolitti, Mazzini, Verdi, Galilei, Leonardo, Dante Alighieri, the Grand-dukes of Tuscany, Gaius Iulius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Traianus...

Well... we could also nominate the Visconti, the Sforza, the Gonzaga, the Este, the Savoia, Bonaparte, Maria Theresa von Oesterreich, Manzoni, Giolitti, Mazzini, Verdi, Galilei, Leonardo, Dante Alighieri, the Grand-dukes of Tuscany, Gaius Iulius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Traianus...

How so Caesar or Octavian?

Woah, I Cabra seems to have this sorted.

I do finding a little annoying how some people assume that there must be one definitive date on which a modern government was founded, and therefore must have definitive founding fathers.

For the UK the Kingdom itself can trace its roots back to the Kingdom of Wessex which was found around about 500AD.

The royal line can be traced back to 1066AD.

And Parliament of Great Britain is descended from the Witenagemots of each of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the Heptarchy. The Witenagemots seems to first take place in the 7th century, but they themselves also trace their roots to the ancient tribal general assemblies, or folkmoots, of the Angles and the Saxons.

Each have remained in place throughout the history Britain, with only minor constitutional changes ever occurring, but over a thousand years of history, have added up to huge changes.

Woah, I Cabra seems to have this sorted.

I do finding a little annoying how some people assume that there must be one definitive date on which a modern government was founded, and therefore must have definitive founding fathers.

For the UK the Kingdom itself can trace its roots back to the Kingdom of Wessex which was found around about 500AD.

The royal line can be traced back to 1066AD.

And Parliament of Great Britain is descended from the Witenagemots of each of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the Heptarchy. The Witenagemots seems to first take place in the 7th century, but they themselves also trace their roots to the ancient tribal general assemblies, or folkmoots, of the Angles and the Saxons.

Each have remained in place throughout the history Britain, with only minor constitutional changes ever occurring, but over a thousand years of history, have added up to huge changes.

Bloody right.

The only observation I'd make would be Cromwell and the commonwealth. Though Henry's use of parliament to buttress the state in the reformation proved seminal in giving parliament greater influence upon the state, Cromwell's execution of Charles in 1649 was crucial to the development of parliamentary government.

Countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea spend billions on censoring their populations and restricting their knowledge about the rest of the world, but fail completely.


North Korea doesn't fail at that. Unfortunately.

Henry's use of parliament to buttress the state in the reformation proved seminal in giving parliament greater influence upon the state

Quite so. Henry VIII summoned Parliament a lot more than his predecessors, setting a precedent for comparatively regular consultation. Implementing the Reformation through Acts of Parliament to a significant degree to "legitimise" it had a big influence on English history.


Cromwell's execution of Charles in 1649 was crucial to the development of parliamentary government.

Well... In the sense that it was the triumph of Parliament over a practician of the "divine right of Kings", yes, definitely. But you have to remember that Cromwell subsequently did away with Parliament himself. It was a big step forward, yes, but arguably the bigger one came in 1688/9. William and Mary accepted Parliament's role, and then of course the early Hanoverians were mostly passive kings, boosting Parliament's role even further...

In that sense, Cabra West, The Infinite Dunes, etc are entirely right. Constitutional change in the UK came step by step, making it difficult to isolate the "major turning point". (Which in turn makes this poll rather pointless or nonsensical.)

I honestly don't know much about the "founding fathers" in other nations (thank you, American public education system!), but I'd imagine that it would be hard not to top our founding fathers.

I mean seriously, let's think about it: a crew of rich white males get together to throw off the chains of repression so they can establish a "newer, better nation" ...in which about 70% of the population will be classified as subhuman and denied fundamental human/civil rights. And that's not even including the entire continent full of native peoples who were (logically) also denied any status in the New Super Awesome Nation Of Freedom.

I think the personalities of many of the American Founders make them fascinating people, and I think they did a whole lot of really cool stuff, and I really like their idea for the structure of our government. But let's face it, as Founders they really screwed the pooch.

Ireland clearly wins. When the Gaels invaded Ireland they ended up at war with the Danaans, the fairy folk, and eventually made peace with most of them. How many other countries were born out of a war with fairies?

Ireland clearly wins. When the Gaels invaded Ireland they ended up at war with the Danaans, the fairy folk, and eventually made peace with most of them. How many other countries were born out of a war with fairies?
Ha! Japan was founded when the goddess of the sun told her grandson to go out and found a great nation upon the reed plain. Sun goddesses beat fairies any day. ;)

Ha! Japan was founded when the goddess of the sun told her grandson to go out and found a great nation upon the reed plain. Sun goddesses beat fairies any day. ;)

Pffft, leprechauns>all other magical things.

That's... so off I'm not sure where to actually begin with it.

Please read:
Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan
Embracing Defeat: Japan After World War II

for basic background. I'd also recommend, Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, though it's really dense.
Well I am sorry if your historical view on this tends to the extreme revisionist, but I tend to accept the mainstream view on it.

Pffft, leprechauns>all other magical things.For all the greatness of leprechauns and fairies it didn't stop Ireland from converting to Christianity. :p

So obviously God>all other magical things.

Canada... I mean, we had Sir John A MacDonald as our first prime minister and he was an absolute lush. That's just awesome.

Sumeria, baby! Adapa all the wizzle!

For all the greatness of leprechauns and fairies it didn't stop Ireland from converting to Christianity. :p

So obviously God>all other magical things.

They were probably just too drunk to do anything.

I'm quite appalled that none of the Nordic countries is on the list.

Denmark, Sweden (both prehistoric nations) or, heck, Finland (whose independence was promoted by none other than Lenin).

:D

For all the greatness of leprechauns and fairies it didn't stop Ireland from converting to Christianity. :p

So obviously God>all other magical things.

The Romans razed his home in Jerusalem though, while the Romans never occupied Ireland (maybe, they had some commercial outposts over there but nothing more). So clearly leprechauns>God

-US-

disclaimer: I dont know who are the founding father of other countries.. or if they all have..

Erm... no. There are some figures at different stages in most countries histories that shaped the course the country would take, but they are not regarded as founders usually. Just as figures in a long line of figures. A very long line of figures.
Or who would you claim was the founding father of England? Alfred the Great? William the Conqueror? King John? Elisabeth I?
Who is the founding father of France? Charles Matell? Charlemagne? Napoleon?
Who is the founding father of Germany? Arminius? Charlemagne? Friedrich the Great? Napoleon? Bismark? Adenauer?
Who is the founding father of Italy? Romulus and Remus? Justinian? The Medici? Giuseppe Garibaldi?true true

Bump!

azerbaijan

Russia and the US.

Well I am sorry if your historical view on this tends to the extreme revisionist, but I tend to accept the mainstream view on it.
Well I'm sorry you have no bloody clue about Japanese history that you think the propaganda given after the war to justify NOT trying the Emperor Showa is the truth; which is, BTW, not what mainstream historians hold.

none of the above.

since countries/governments represent some sort of internal or domestic power structure, all the founders are a bunch of power grubbing egotists.

however...,
those that founded the various states (of the US) did attempt to put the kings' corporations (wealth extracting entities) in check by having them be chartered only for X amount of years, to have them serve a public purpose specifically written into their charter, and have them accountable to the people by making sure the state that chartered them could revoke the charter if it was not operating exactly as it was legally restricted to by its charter.



the people of East Timor existed pretty much outside the global economic system and prevented integration by Indonesia's fascist dictator only to fall from sovereignty by capitulating to the IMF & World Bank conditionalities. They almost founded a sovereign nation.

beyond the US I don't know very many other founders, so because of this ignorance, i could not vote with a clean conscience.

:upyours::fluffle:

I am also kind of offended that the main ones are European or its offshoots.

Not really. I don't get offended very easily. But you get my point.


:upyours::mp5::fluffle:

Mongolia deserves a spot in the poll.

US it's just a shame what they founded has been perverted by ineptitude.

What about Japan?

Ooh! Ooh! I know! Tokugawa Ieyasu!