America-centric???

[oliegirl]

OK...so I've been reading Mustangs Historical Dates draft, and I'm really impressed by what everyone has come up with so far. But I have a question for the board...


Mustang took Katrina as a 2nd round pick, and MapleLeafs commented that it was an "America Centric" pick...I believe that comment was also made when 9/11 was taken, which is what prompted me to ask this question.

How could something like 9/11 be considered America Centric, when brought up the context of days/events that changed the world? True, it happened on American soil, but if someone had flown planes into the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, or any other "International Landmark" and killed thousands of people, would it be MORE important because it didn't happen on American soil?

9/11 changed the world, for Americans and for non-Americans. It started a war, whether you agree with the war or not, it's tantamount to Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination starting WWI.

So...my question is this. Does an event happening on American soil "lessen" it in some way to the rest of the world? And if so...why?

[Fidatelo]

It doesn't lessen it, its just that similar-sized tragedies in the rest of the world, particularly Asian countries, often get far less play. It doesn't lessen them at all, they are still horrible events.

By the way, can someone link to the thread? I've never seen it so I'm curious to see if the rankings actually do appear to have an America-centric slant to them or not.

[MikeVic]

I don't think so, but with both of those, I think how high they were taken was the issue?

I can't comment completely on how big 9/11 is, but I think it is a noteworthy event in history. I don't think you can compare the war that resulted from it to World War I... but the Patriot Act was a result of it too, right? And that seems like a bad step for freedom in my mind.

With Katrina, as bad as it is, it's really not much compared to other disasters in history.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I don't think so, but with both of those, I think how high they were taken was the issue?

I can't comment completely on how big 9/11 is, but I think it is a noteworthy event in history. I don't think you can compare the war that resulted from it to World War I... but the Patriot Act was a result of it too, right? And that seems like a bad step for freedom in my mind.

With Katrina, as bad as it is, it's really not much compared to other disasters in history.

I agree that Katrina might have been "America Centric", which is why I didn't use it in my example...especially when compared to the Tsunami in Thailand which happened shortly after Katrina (if memory serves correctly).

True...this war doesn't have the same impact on the world that WWI had, yet. There is the chance that it will though. It's only been 6 years since 9/11, and in terms of history, that is barely the blink of an eye. And it's been even less time since the war started...I just believe that in the "Grand Scheme of Things", 9/11 and the events following are at some point going to be a major turning point in World History. Whethere the changes are for better or for worse is the only thing we don't know yet.

[Maple Leafs]

MikeVic pretty much nailed it. In the context of a draft where you're choosing from all the major events in human history, having 9/11 or (especially) Katrina in the top dozen or so choices seems odd. Maybe it's not so much America-centric as it is an over-emphasis on the recent, or some combination.

Was Katrina, even given all the political implications, really significantly more important event than an eartquake that kills millions in China? That's sounds like a rhetorical question but it's not, because your answer is just naturally going to be highly influenced by how close the event was to you -- both in terms of time and geography.

Americans aren't unique in their desire to consider things that happen to them more important than things that happen to anyone else. That's basic human psychology. But since there are more Americans here, you're going to get a built-in bias. Again, not really a good or bad thing, it just is. That's all I was arguing.

(9/11 is a bit of a different subject, since the draft is focused on dates and regardless of the historical impact of the day, it certainly is a very famous date.)

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I agree that Katrina might have been "America Centric", which is why I didn't use it in my example...especially when compared to the Tsunami in Thailand which happened shortly after Katrina (if memory serves correctly).

True...this war doesn't have the same impact on the world that WWI had, yet. There is the chance that it will though. It's only been 6 years since 9/11, and in terms of history, that is barely the blink of an eye. And it's been even less time since the war started...I just believe that in the "Grand Scheme of Things", 9/11 and the events following are at some point going to be a major turning point in World History. Whethere the changes are for better or for worse is the only thing we don't know yet.

Exactly. So you see how taking that event so early can prompt the comments about the pick being America-centric? We don't know everything about it yet, and what it means for history.

Maybe I'm off-base here, and someone in the actual draft (Maple Leafs?) can correct me if I'm wrong.

edit: Yeah, Maple Leafs has a good post right above this.

[QuikSand]

Slightly off track, but this revived my recollection of something along these lines posted here. Here's an actual verbatim quote from the FOFC thread about the Asian tusnami:

It's just a matter of time before a ''western'' region is hit. I cant even fathom the devestation a tsunami would cause if Seattle or SF were slammed.

Ugh.

[Klinglerware]

But on the other hand, if the voters who will cast judgment on this draft are predominantly American, then it could be considered merely good gamesmanship.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

OK...so I've been reading Mustangs Historical Dates draft, and I'm really impressed by what everyone has come up with so far. But I have a question for the board...


Mustang took Katrina as a 2nd round pick, and MapleLeafs commented that it was an "America Centric" pick...I believe that comment was also made when 9/11 was taken, which is what prompted me to ask this question.

How could something like 9/11 be considered America Centric, when brought up the context of days/events that changed the world? True, it happened on American soil, but if someone had flown planes into the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, or any other "International Landmark" and killed thousands of people, would it be MORE important because it didn't happen on American soil?

9/11 changed the world, for Americans and for non-Americans. It started a war, whether you agree with the war or not, it's tantamount to Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination starting WWI.

So...my question is this. Does an event happening on American soil "lessen" it in some way to the rest of the world? And if so...why?

No, its simply meant to remind people (like you) that there is a world outside America - the average American has no awareness of the impact of terrorism or disasters outside their country (hell, ask people about Rwanda, or Darfur, or the Battle of Gallipoli, or a hundred other events).

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

How could something like 9/11 be considered America Centric

Because the rest of the world would call it 11/9?

[lordscarlet]

There are some ideas in here for the other thread, so I will throw spoilers around it:

Spoiler

Well, most of my thoughts have been posted by others, but I will reiterate a little -- particularly since I did the most grandstanding about "America-Centric" choices. Of the first dozen picks, only 1 was not what I would call America-Centric. As was stated, Katrina is the huge one. However, I am the one that said 9/11 was America-Centric. Do you really believe, that over the course of world history, that 9/11 is the sixth most (I realize that being picked 1.6 does not necessarily mean it is the "sixth most" important, but you get my drift) important event? Ferdinand (as you mentioned) is not more important? The assassination of Caesar is not more important? The invasion of Poland? The publication of Mein Kampf? Antietam, the Gettysburg Address, or Appomattox? The fall of Soviet Russia? The rise of Soviet Russia? The publication of the Qu'ran? The list goes on and on. The attacks on September 11, in my opinion, may not even be the most significant event in American history in the past 100 years, much less all of world history. Was it tragic? Sure. Did it cause large events (the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq)? Yes, arguably. On a global, history-wide scale is it important? Not really.

As wars go, the current war in Iraq ranks first in history? (if you are claiming that 9/11 is important because it created the environment that led to the invasion of Iraq) Pearl Harbor is above 9/11, which I certainly feel is important. But outside of WWII, the United States has fought at least 3 more wars important to it's own history, and ultimately important to world history (as the United States would not be what it is today, the leading world power, without the results of those wars): WWI, the American Civil War and the Revolutionary War.

I'm just rambling, so I will stop. But basically I am saying that on a global, and even domestic scale, over the course of history, September 11 has yet to prove as a significant event. The Iraq War, in 20-30 years, may only turn out to be as important as the Vietnam War.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

9/11 changed the world, for Americans and for non-Americans. It started a war, whether you agree with the war or not, it's tantamount to Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination starting WWI.

I think many outside of the US would point out that it is Amerocentric to claim that the war against terror somehow started on 9/11. The Israelis have been fighting this war since before Munich in 1972. Bombings by Islamic groups have been staged elsewhere in Europe since the 70s as well. Indians would likely point to the 1993 Mumbai bombings as when their war started.

A more apt analogy for 9/11 may be Pearl Harbor. Many other nations were already devoting lives and resources to the struggle, but the attack at Pearl Harbor brought the US off of the sideline and into the fray. he Brits and the Russians were glad to have our direct involvement, but they would be justifiably upset if the US were to act as if the lives and effort expended prior to December 7th, 1941 didn't happen.

[Maple Leafs]

I think it's worth pointing out that, by generally accepted definitions of the term, 9/11 was the deadliest terrorist attack in history (and it's not even especially close). Compared to Katrina, there's at least a strong argument to be made for 9/11 as far historical significance.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I think many outside of the US would point out that it is Amerocentric to claim that the war against terror somehow started on 9/11. The Israelis have been fighting this war since before Munich in 1972. Bombings by Islamic groups have been staged elsewhere in Europe since the 70s as well. Indians would likely point to the 1993 Mumbai bombings as when their war started.

A more apt analogy for 9/11 may be Pearl Harbor. Many other nations were already devoting lives and resources to the struggle, but the attack at Pearl Harbor brought the US off of the sideline and into the fray. he Brits and the Russians were glad to have our direct involvement, but they would be justifiably upset if the US were to act as if the lives and effort expended prior to December 7th, 1941 didn't happen.

Bingo. India has sufferred more terrorist losses than any other nation (I think Weekly Standard pointed this out) - even more so than Israel. The attitude of some that if the deaths aren't American, they don't matter, is precisely what is galling.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Bingo. India has sufferred more terrorist losses than any other nation (I think Weekly Standard pointed this out) - even more so than Israel. The attitude of some that if the deaths aren't American, they don't matter, is precisely what is galling.

And I don't think that's unreasonable in terms of your day-to-day life. It's human nature. When I worked in journalism, there was a saying in the newsroom that one death in my town is worth ten in the next town, is worth hundreds in the next country, is worth thousands overseas. It's macabre, but there's a lot of truth to it. I wouldn't expect the average American to spend much time thinking about a few hundred people on the other side of the world who die in a flood. It's just the way people are.

The problem is when you're talking in the context of worldwide events and you still try to insist that yours are more important. It's the Bill Maher "tattered flag" analogy, and it's the point where people start to get (rightfully) offended.

[oliegirl]

I do see where you are all coming from, and definitely agree with some of the posts...but I think it's human nature to be more "in tune" with what happens in your own backyard. I consider myself to be fairly well versed on current events and relatively intelligent...I seek out websites to read about news in other countries. I recognize that a lot of American's don't, but I don't think this is a solely American trait.

I don't think I knew that India had suffered the most terrorist losses but I certainly know that the fight on terrorism didn't start with 9/11...I would think it's reasonable to say that it reached a pinnacle on 9/11...

I'm not saying it's right or wrong to say we're America Centric, I'm sure we are to a point, I'm just not sure if that is a trait we own alone of if most countries have the same thoughts....

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

And I don't think that's unreasonable in terms of your day-to-day life. It's human nature. When I worked in journalism, there was a saying in the newsroom that one death in my town is worth ten in the next town, is worth hundreds in the next country, is worth thousands overseas. It's macabre, but there's a lot of truth to it. I wouldn't expect the average American to spend much time thinking about a few hundred people on the other side of the world who die in a flood. It's just the way people are.

The problem is when you're talking in the context of worldwide events and you still try to insist that yours are more important. It's the Bill Maher "tattered flag" analogy, and it's the point where people start to get (rightfully) offended.

You are right, I suppose. I'm a classic Third Culture Kid - grew up in India, lived in Africa and Asia, now in the US. I'm an information and political junkie, and I realize that my standards of knowledge are significantly higher than pretty much everyone else. Its wierd, because I'm probably more pro-American than the vast majority of Americans I know, but the lack of knowledge here is depressing at times. When 160 people die in a plane crash , CNN will note that 4 Americans died - that's the kind of narcissism that is somewhat off putting.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I do see where you are all coming from, and definitely agree with some of the posts...but I think it's human nature to be more "in tune" with what happens in your own backyard. I consider myself to be fairly well versed on current events and relatively intelligent...I seek out websites to read about news in other countries. I recognize that a lot of American's don't, but I don't think this is a solely American trait.

I don't think I knew that India had suffered the most terrorist losses but I certainly know that the fight on terrorism didn't start with 9/11...I would think it's reasonable to say that it reached a pinnacle on 9/11...

I'm not saying it's right or wrong to say we're America Centric, I'm sure we are to a point, I'm just not sure if that is a trait we own alone of if most countries have the same thoughts....

I didn't know the India bit either - that I read it in either the Standard or NR is what surprised me, but I know we have a long history. I do disagree voraciously with your last line - I think America is perhaps the most inward looking of the places I've lived in or been to. Its an attitude I think, as much as anything - and its not necessarily a bad thing, but still.

[rkmsuf]

Think of the world as NFL franchises. When Tom Brady takes a shit, NE fans pay attention. Rest of the fans...not so much.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I didn't know the India bit either - that I read it in either the Standard or NR is what surprised me, but I know we have a long history. I do disagree voraciously with your last line - I think America is perhaps the most inward looking of the places I've lived in or been to. Its an attitude I think, as much as anything - and its not necessarily a bad thing, but still.

I haven't had the opportunity to travel and see first hand if other countries think like we do, that's why I made sure to say "I'm not sure"...I've heard from other people that we are, but I think it's a fairly subjective issue so I don't really take anyone's word for it, I'd have to see it for myself.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

And I don't think that's unreasonable in terms of your day-to-day life. It's human nature. When I worked in journalism, there was a saying in the newsroom that one death in my town is worth ten in the next town, is worth hundreds in the next country, is worth thousands overseas. It's macabre, but there's a lot of truth to it. I wouldn't expect the average American to spend much time thinking about a few hundred people on the other side of the world who die in a flood. It's just the way people are.

The problem is when you're talking in the context of worldwide events and you still try to insist that yours are more important. It's the Bill Maher "tattered flag" analogy, and it's the point where people start to get (rightfully) offended.

From wikipedia:

"recent analysis compiled by the United Nations lists a total of 229,866 people lost, including 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing"

190,000 people is a few more than "a few hundred".

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

From wikipedia:
"recent analysis compiled by the United Nations lists a total of 229,866 people lost, including 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing"

190,000 people is a few more than "a few hundred".

You're obviously referring to a specific event. I was pulling a hypothetical to illustrate the point.

[chesapeake]

Obsession with ourselves is not a uniquely American trait. But we have made it into an art form.

Case in point, Fred Thompson was asked in last night's debate to name the Prime Minister of Canada -- our biggest trading partner and closest ally. Good for him, he got it right. Most Americans have no idea. How about the new Prime Minister of another of our very close allies, Japan?

Unless you follow the news pretty closely, you are probably like most Americans, who wouldn't know the answers to either of those questions. But the brutal reality is that decisions made in Ottawa and Tokyo don't have a global effect like many of the day-to-day decisions made in Washington. As a result, much of the world knows George Bush and relatively few know the names Stephen Harper and Yasuo Fukuda. (Partial credit if you said Abe, but he is SO two weeks ago.)

We export our culture to other countries and make billions doing it. But it is hard to turn the spigot in the other direction because so few Americans can speak any foreign languages. What we do adopt is either 1) British, which we can mostly understand; or 2) functionally "Americanized" to make it understandable by the average person.

Ultimately, we have a massive language barrier that insulates us from the rest of the world and we are so rich an powerful that, in the short term, it works for us.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Obsession with ourselves is not a uniquely American trait. But we have made it into an art form.

Case in point, Fred Thompson was asked in last night's debate to name the Prime Minister of Canada -- our biggest trading partner and closest ally. Good for him, he got it right. Most Americans have no idea. How about the new Prime Minister of another of our very close allies, Japan?

Unless you follow the news pretty closely, you are probably like most Americans, who wouldn't know the answers to either of those questions. But the brutal reality is that decisions made in Ottawa and Tokyo don't have a global effect like many of the day-to-day decisions made in Washington. As a result, much of the world knows George Bush and relatively few know the names Stephen Harper and Yasuo Fukuda. (Partial credit if you said Abe, but he is SO two weeks ago.)

We export our culture to other countries and make billions doing it. But it is hard to turn the spigot in the other direction because so few Americans can speak any foreign languages. What we do adopt is either 1) British, which we can mostly understand; or 2) functionally "Americanized" to make it understandable by the average person.

Ultimately, we have a massive language barrier that insulates us from the rest of the world and we are so rich an powerful that, in the short term, it works for us.

who is the gm of the arizona cardinals?

who is the defensive coordinator of the carolina panthers?

[chesapeake]

I just remembered a somewhat relevant story that happened to me after the 2004 election. My wife and I were in Paris, nursing our post-election wounds, and had a fascinating conversation with one of our waiters about Hillary's chances in 2008. No chance in hell that we could have had the same conversation about Segolene Royal's chances for the French Presidency in 2007. I wouldn't have had any idea who he was talking about and wouldn't have cared in the least.

[Mustang]

To explain myself, I was strictly working in the confines of the voting system and going for a more 'known' disaster and angling towards the voting crowd rather than one that had more numbers. There are any number of Chinese river floods that were far more devastating but, some of those would have brought a 'what disaster?' response.

I would have took the Tsunami but, the date was blacked out.

But, hey, I spawned a separate discussion so, my plan worked.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

who is the gm of the arizona cardinals?

I bring up Canada and Japan, and you drag us down to the Bangladesh of the NFL.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I bring up Canada and Japan, and you drag us down to the Bangladesh of the NFL.

well you did say canada


ok then, name the defensive cooridnator of the pats and gm of the bengals(canada)

[chesapeake]

The Bengals have way too many thugs to be equated with our friendly neighbors to the north. After all, Canada is the nation that means well.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

When 160 people die in a plane crash , CNN will note that 4 Americans died - that's the kind of narcissism that is somewhat off putting.

But that happens in any country. The views are a majority of Americans watching CNN, it's an American TV station, it will focus on US News, more then world news, since that is what Americans want. Just like any other country. If you watch the BBC the primarily point out Brits. And Al-Jazzer will point out primarily Muslims.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Unless you follow the news pretty closely, you are probably like most Americans, who wouldn't know the answers to either of those questions. But the brutal reality is that decisions made in Ottawa and Tokyo don't have a global effect like many of the day-to-day decisions made in Washington. As a result, much of the world knows George Bush and relatively few know the names Stephen Harper and Yasuo Fukuda. (Partial credit if you said Abe, but he is SO two weeks ago.)

You could easily make this even more local. I live in California, I couldn't name any of the Governors of our neighboring states, or even their Senators for that matter. Most people aren't interested in Politics unless it's directly affecting their everyday lives, and that's because they are working and they have a family. There are more important things to some people then News and Politics. (this does not reflect myself, just an observation, I like News and Politics).

[Sgran]

I can tell you that in Hungary (where I live now, but grew up in a chicago suburb) everyone can name Bush, but noone has any clue who Cheney is, much less Ted Kennedy or Bernie Sanders. The US exports culture because it is at the vanguard of entertainment and has the capital to distribute widely. The US screams the loadest.
to back up a bit, 9/11 was an important world event, because someone hit the world's supreme superpower on it's home turf. In the grand scheme of things it could be like the first sacking of Rome (remember that the Roman empire limped along for hundreds of years afterward).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dangarion

There are more important things to some people then News and Politics.

I would alter that to read "to most people" to be honest with you.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I think America is perhaps the most inward looking of the places I've lived in or been to. Its an attitude I think, as much as anything - and its not necessarily a bad thing, but still.

I know it's not a lot, but based on my < 3 months here in the US, I have gotten the same vibe.

[AlexB]

I agree with Sgran - 9/11 was an iconic event and IMHO can be classed as a major event. Terrorism wasn't invented that day, but nothing had been seen of that ilk - number of deaths, recognisable landmark, western land, and one of the business centres of the world.

Not to diminish the effects of Katrina to those who it affected, but it has been seen elsewhere around the world multiple times, with far more devasting effects. Outside of America, I doubt that this would even spring to mind as a major event in world history.

But, looking at the idea of the thread where it was picked, it matters not a jot - the draft is voted on by a 99% US audience, and in the US it is a unique event in modern history.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I agree with Sgran - 9/11 was an iconic event and IMHO can be classed as a major event. Terrorism wasn't invented that day, but nothing had been seen of that ilk - number of deaths, recognisable landmark, western land, and one of the business centres of the world.

Not to diminish the effects of Katrina to those who it affected, but it has been seen elsewhere around the world multiple times, with far more devasting effects. Outside of America, I doubt that this would even spring to mind as a major event in world history.

But, looking at the idea of the thread where it was picked, it matters not a jot - the draft is voted on by a 99% US audience, and in the US it is a unique event in modern history.

I think the crux of Katrina's significance is not as much as the disaster that happened, but in the way those in charge monumentally botched the handling of the disaster relief.

[Toddzilla]

No, I didn't RTFA, but I'd be shocked if anyone remembers the date when the commuter trains in Spain were blown up, or the disco in Bali was bombed.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think the crux of Katrina's significance is not as much as the disaster that happened, but in the way those in charge monumentally botched the handling of the disaster relief.

At least there was disaster relief...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think the crux of Katrina's significance is not as much as the disaster that happened, but in the way those in charge monumentally botched the handling of the disaster relief.

Agree completely with LS here. The "monumentally botched" disaster relief here was light-years better than the disaster relief for, say, the tsunami. Only by looking thru a, yes, America-centric world-view could you say that was poor disaster relief. (And I really don't want to get into an argument on whether it was handled well - it wasn't - but rather point out how high standards are here.)

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Pearl Harbor is above 9/11, which I certainly feel is important. But outside of WWII, the United States has fought at least 3 more wars important to it's own history, and ultimately important to world history (as the United States would not be what it is today, the leading world power, without the results of those wars): WWI, the American Civil War and the Revolutionary War.

Unfortunately LS, I must take issue with this. You really think WWI was a more important war in our nation's history or for our nation's place in the world than WWII? We fought for all of a year, which was basically a stalement. It may have been historically significant as a landmark for when the U.S. became a world power, but it wasn't because of WWI. It was a gradual trend and WWI merely gave it widespread recognition. The next 20 years weren't that different than the previous 20 in terms of world powers. Meanwhile WWII irrevocably changed the landscape, and our place in it, for the next 60+ years.

EDIT - Oops, I read your statement as 3 wars more important, rather than 3 more wars important. So, I guess I take it back.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think the crux of Katrina's significance is not as much as the disaster that happened, but in the way those in charge monumentally botched the handling of the disaster relief.

If that's its primary significance then you've just relegated it to the dust bin of history.

I'm infinitely more concerned about the millions/billions that have been/will be foolishly spent trying to rebuild something that should be plowed under as a damned abomination than about any mistakes that were made in the midst of the disaster itself.

[flere-imsaho]

As others have pointed out, 9/11 will almost always have some historical significance on a world scale if only for the number of lives lost. To date, it's still the deadliest terrorist attack in the world and, as Maple Leafs pointed out, it's not even close.

If we look at the history of terrorism, 9/11 will probably always have significance as the first really big & deadly terrorist attack where an independent organization (Al-Qaida) projected power a considerable geographic distance from their base. I think, sadly, that historians in 2100 and beyond will point to 9/11 as the start of true international terrorism with non-state entities attacking states. This as opposed to the in-state (IRA, ETA), regional (Middle East, India) or state-sponsored terrorism of the 20th century.

Outside of terrorism, 9/11's historical significance will, I think, be reflected in the knock-on effects resulting from the U.S. reaction (both government and population) to the event. To have the populace of the world's only superpower, a country of incredible cultural, social, economic and political hegemony, go from being largely unconcerned about terrorism to absolutely paranoid about it, is likely to be a major theme when histories are written about the beginning of the 21st century.