NationStates Jolt Archive

Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker...Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.

Seeing as the president has a very messianic view of the US, and seems concerned more about how future generations will see him than present ones, I'm curious as to what users here think the future will view this time as. It doesn't have to be related the Bush, that was just a relevant quote, but in general, how will Generation Delta in 2120 view the the world of the the turn of the millennium?

EDIT: Feel free to talk about things besides Bush's legacy. The rest of the world will be remembered, too.

Seeing as the president has a very messianic view of the US, and seems concerned more about how future generations will see him than present ones, I'm curious as to what users here think the future will view this time as. It doesn't have to be related the Bush, that was just a relevant quote, but in general, how will Generation Delta in 2120 view the the world of the the turn of the millennium?

I believe they will see a world in transition.

We are racing headlong towards something we're just starting to glimpse. Our social and political systems are in a state of flux. Our leaders are just as clueless as the rest of us - the best are trying to ride the whirlwind, the worst holding on to old certainties that are no longer quite so certain.

Transition to what? I have no idea, but I'm fascinated by what happens next.

Using my clairvoyance...

In 2120, there will still be some nationalistic feeling. American will be interested and feel involved. European will take a look, think, suppose, and think about our times only as something very theorical.

Seeing as the president has a very messianic view of the US, and seems concerned more about how future generations will see him than present ones, I'm curious as to what users here think the future will view this time as. It doesn't have to be related the Bush, that was just a relevant quote, but in general, how will Generation Delta in 2120 view the the world of the the turn of the millennium?
I predict that he'll fall in with Chester A. Arthur and James K. Polk as a largely forgotten President, of interest only to trivia buffs (and even then, they'll only know him and his father as the father-son presidential pair).

I believe they will see a world in transition.

We are racing headlong towards something we're just starting to glimpse. Our social and political systems are in a state of flux. Our leaders are just as clueless as the rest of us - the best are trying to ride the whirlwind, the worst holding on to old certainties that are no longer quite so certain.

Transition to what? I have no idea, but I'm fascinated by what happens next.

I agree, somewhat. Although there have been no amazing technological advances recently, advances that already existed (e.g., the Internet) are available to more and more people. The world is definitely becoming more connected.
At the same time, I'm not sure the 2000s will be considered a turning point. To the people alive at the time, all of their lives are part of a transition, or so it seems to them. I think people in the 2100s will see this time as more a speedening of something that already happened, that led to where they are. Like you said, I'm not sure what that is, though.

Well, the world is ending in 2012, so why worry about it?
I mean, most of the people saying the world is going to die on 2012 were spot on about it ending in 2,000. Its just that nobody noticed.

I predict that he'll fall in with Chester A. Arthur and James K. Polk as a largely forgotten President, of interest only to trivia buffs (and even then, they'll only know him and his father as the father-son presidential pair).

I'd agree with the Polk analogy, but not the Arthur. Polk was the president behind the Mexican War, and most people know of that conflict. Similarly, I think people will remember the war in Iraq, not because it or the president is so spectacular, but because it was a war. They usually get remembered.

"filthy hippies"

the 2010's however...

http://smbc-comics.com/comics/20060725.gif

I'd agree with the Polk analogy, but not the Arthur. Polk was the president behind the Mexican War, and most people know of that conflict. Similarly, I think people will remember the war in Iraq, not because it or the president is so spectacular, but because it was a war. They usually get remembered.
Not really.
You ask the average American to name what wars the US has been in, and you'll get a list roughly comparable to this one (http://www.historycentral.com/wars.html). The Barbary Wars? The Invasion of Panama? Most military actions are forgotten after a generation or two.

And even if someone remembers the Mexican War, odds are they won't remember Polk. Same thing, people 100 years from now might remember Iraq-Afghanistan, but Bush will have slid gracelessly out of the public consciousness.

Depends on what kind of a future they live in and compare our times to.

If they end up living in a worst case global warming scenario they will view our time as the age of exploitation and wastefulness that ravaged the planet and turned into a bad place to live.

If they have developed cures for all major diseases and genetically engineered crops that can provide enough food for everyone then they will view our time as a period when large areas where plagued by diseases, famine and poverty.

If Asia, Africa and South America manages to become stronger economies then North America and Europe then they will view our time as the western era, a time when English was the international language and USA was the cultural center of the world.

Not really.
You ask the average American to name what wars the US has been in, and you'll get a list roughly comparable to this one (http://www.historycentral.com/wars.html). The Barbary Wars? The Invasion of Panama? Most military actions are forgotten after a generation or two.

And even if someone remembers the Mexican War, odds are they won't remember Polk. Same thing, people 100 years from now might remember Iraq-Afghanistan, but Bush will have slid gracelessly out of the public consciousness.

The Barbary wars were too badass to forget about.

Not really.
You ask the average American to name what wars the US has been in, and you'll get a list roughly comparable to this one (http://www.historycentral.com/wars.html). The Barbary Wars? The Invasion of Panama? Most military actions are forgotten after a generation or two.

And even if someone remembers the Mexican War, odds are they won't remember Polk. Same thing, people 100 years from now might remember Iraq-Afghanistan, but Bush will have slid gracelessly out of the public consciousness.

I don't know, I've heard of all those wars. I'm not sure what most people think though, maybe there's a poll somewhere that could help.

And I guess you're right about Polk and the Mexican War. I know he was president during it, but I'll admit, I don't know what else he did. It may be the same with Bush.

There's still 9/11, though. Like the war in Iraq, that may be remembered while the president forgotten, but it's pretty important.

The Barbary wars were too badass to forget about.

Oh dear.
You've done it now.

Seeing as the president has a very messianic view of the US, and seems concerned more about how future generations will see him than present ones, I'm curious as to what users here think the future will view this time as. It doesn't have to be related the Bush, that was just a relevant quote, but in general, how will Generation Delta in 2120 view the the world of the the turn of the millennium?

He will be viewed like Nixon.

He will be viewed like Nixon.

Except that Nixon, while he was a dick, really wasnt a BAD president. Especially when compared to Bush.

He will be viewed like Nixon.

you will be able to spot who has taken LSD by a Bush mask?

Except that Nixon, while he was a dick, really wasnt a BAD president. Especially when compared to Bush.

I agree but I think the view of him as an embarrassment either way will probably be as close to Nixon as to anybody.

They will think of Dubya as a redeemed president around the same time history teachers think of Nixon as "That guy who made a V sign with both hands".

They'll see this time as a transition time, sure, but that does not mean that in 2010 we won't be in a transition time too. More likely these times will be seen as the start of the speeding-up times, when transition is normal.

Hopefully they'll also look back in amusement at our excessive nationalism and capitalism, but that's just wishful thinking on my part. It's just as likely they'll see now as a golden age when we didn't know how easy we had it.

I'd like to clock out sometime between 2150 and 2200, ceteris paribus, so I'll probably tell you in person.

Well, the world is ending in 2012.. What happen ?
Somebody set up us the bomb.

History may remember George III of America, but it won't redeem him. Just as George III of England is remembered, but not necessarily fondly.

What happen ?
Somebody set up us the bomb.

That's AD 2101.

Just as George III of England is remembered, but not necessarily fondly.

actually George the third isn't really remembered in Britain

actually George the third isn't really remembered in Britain

But he is remembered in America, as the King who lost the Revolutionary War.

History will redeem G.W. Bush ... for ten cents off the price of a tank of gas.

Note: management reserves the right to alter this offer at its discretion.

you will be able to spot who has taken LSD by a Bush mask?

You can do that?

You can do that?

yes the guy who's wearing the mask will be on LSD, don't argue with it Nixon likes to party

What about non-Bush related events? How will those be remembered?

*drumbeat* Ron Paul's deeds, if he is elected, will probably overshadow Bush as abolishing the FDA and dissolving the banks will be a big deal in US national history and Iraq war was just like stomping on an anthill, but of course, it still hurts, but the bureaucrats never are hurted... Gold Standard *drumbeat*

I'm just eager to post directly a certain Ron Paul's .gif Desperance Network did, but I think it could be offensive to people who take things too seriously so I won't. Instead I'll just link to it so if you don't want to see it, you don't need to:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2831/ronpaulcd0.gif

Would this "joke" above become reality, Bush would become a footnote in US presidential history.

Even tools turn into top blokes when they're dead.

Bush won't be redeemed by history so much as reamed by it.

yes the guy who's wearing the mask will be on LSD, don't argue with it Nixon likes to party

Lolz.

Seeing as the president has a very messianic view of the US, and seems concerned more about how future generations will see him than present ones, I'm curious as to what users here think the future will view this time as. It doesn't have to be related the Bush, that was just a relevant quote, but in general, how will Generation Delta in 2120 view the the world of the the turn of the millennium?

It depends on what sort of society we have by then.

If we've abandoned democracy and embraced Empire in name as well as fact they'll probably remember him fondly.

If America has become a liberal paradise with a powerful economy, health care for all, and a thriving middle class we'll remember him as the kick in the ass that we needed to get our selves in gear and take control of our democracy because we finally saw what happens when we leave it to do its own job.

If America continues much as it has, Bush will hardly be remembered at all. Historians will remember his administration as an embarrassing low point. To everyone else, when they think of him at all, they will remember him more for being like John Q. Adams (who became president after an eponymous father had done so and distinguishing himself with a middle initial) than they will remember him for being like the worst parts of Nixon or LBJ.

Of course, to judge him on how he will be remembered in a hundred years is stupid. When I was 8 I had to have a tooth pulled. The tooth was brittle and broke while it being extracted and ended up getting pulled out in bits and peices. The Novocaine did nothing for the pain. It was excruciating. That was over 20 years ago, so I hardly think about it anymore except when I'm presented with the question of most physically painful event in ones life. That doesn't mean that it was ok just because 20 years later it has little effect on my life. It just means that with time horrifying events become less of a big deal. Which is why it's so hard for Gulliani to get traction with 9/11 these days (though he certainly tries). History is already starting to recognize Gulliani as an arrogant incompotent bully, and history will see Bush as the same, but few will care about either of them.

I agree but I think the view of him as an embarrassment either way will probably be as close to Nixon as to anybody.

Ok, o all of you that make the direct comparison to Nixon... what is your historical perspective on that?What about all of the people who thought that Washington would go down as an over-centralizing quasi-monarchist? Or all of those people who thought Lincoln would go down as a civil rights-repressing warmongering imperialist? Who can say with seeming surety what the future will hold for Bush's memory? Kudos to all of you who 'kinda' dodge hte direct question by outlining the issues with historical perspective, or at least realizing that who knows what will change to make our memory of him better (or worse perhaps).

Even tools turn into top blokes when they're dead.

I have yet to understand how Bush not doing the popular thing makes him a tool? Or is it that many modern liberals, being tools themselves decide that they must resort to unbased name-calling to take pressure off of the fact that Bush is more unpopular because of our bandwagon society than because of what he himself has actually done? (Meaning that everyone who call Bush a tool, is indeed one themselves for submitting to popular opinion for no reason other than to fit into popular opinion....)

He will be viewed like Nixon.

Nixon was an excellent president.

I have yet to understand how Bush not doing the popular thing makes him a tool? Or is it that many modern liberals, being tools themselves decide that they must resort to unbased name-calling to take pressure off of the fact that Bush is more unpopular because of our bandwagon society than because of what he himself has actually done? (Meaning that everyone who call Bush a tool, is indeed one themselves for submitting to popular opinion for no reason other than to fit into popular opinion....)

You seem to think "tool" means "someone who does only what is popular." Which isn't the definition I'd use, anyway.

Speaking of definitions, what do you mean by "bandwagon society?"

Karl Rove said that months ago.

The Lame duck is getting desperate for a legacy.