A Civilization

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
better termed the Anglo-Saxon civilisation

Probably better termed the anglo-saxon-nordic civ, given the large numbers of Brits from the northern parts of England whose ancestors came a-viking to the island at the end of the first millennium.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


By your reasoning, Germany shouldn't be a civ as it wasnt united until a few hundred years ago.

Yes, but the people and cultures that it represents have been around much longer.

[Tingkai]

I like KrazyHorse's definition of civilization. It shows the U.S. and Britain are seperate civilizations.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Maybe in another thousand years or so the Americans and the British will have diverged enough to be considered members of different civilisations. Until then, they:
1)Speak the same language (though very slightly different dialects)
2)Exist under remarkably similar economic systems
3)Exist under political systems which are virtually equivalent (minus a few pro forma items)
4)Have common goals
5)Are, in the main, composed of peoples with similar backgrounds and religious beliefs
6)Have an inextricably intertwined history together, even after the rift of the Revolution

1. All British people speak English. Many Americans do not (they speak Spanish, Cantonese, Italian, etc.)
2. The British economy is a welfare state, the American economy is not.
3. The British political system is a constitutional monarchy, the American system is not. The British Prime Minister is determined by the political party that gets the most seats, the American president is directly elected. The U.S. has a federal-state government system, Britain does not.
4) Britain is aligned with the EU, the U.S. is not. The U.S. intervened in Vietnam, Britain did not, etc.
5) The vast majority of British people have extensive roots in Britain. A sizeable segment of the American population have no roots in Britain.
6. An inextricably intertwined history together? Well, I guess if you are referring to being at war (War of 1812). Did the Brits get actively involved in the U.S. civil war, no. Did the U.S. help Britain fight its colonial wars, no. When Britain went to war in 1914 and 1939, did the U.S. immediately jump in on Britain's side, no.

Congrats KrazyHorse on proving the American civilization is different from the British Civ.

[KrazyHorse]

1: Not all British people speak English as their first language. There are large numbers of immigrants in England who do not, and very small numbers of Welsh who are incomprehensible to the rest of the country.

2: The British system has less State intervention in the economy than any of the G7 countries except for the US. The British and American systems are remarkably similar when compared to the rest of the world, and not just in terms of laws: also in terms of the actual state of both economies.

3: Constitutional monarchy: whatever. The only real difference between the two is the separation of the "legislative" and "executive" branches. Compare the two systems to the actual functioning of any non-european state, and see how similar they are.

4: Britain is barely "aligned" with the EU. They haven't traded in their currency, and on security issues the Brits are far closer to the US than they are to France.

5: Same answer as in 1

6: Jesus, you're deliberately being obtuse here. I didn't say that they were a unified State; I said that they were members of the same civilisation. Answer my question: are Austria and Germany both members of the same civilisation? If not, are there any two separate countries which can be considered membes of the same civilisation? If the answer to this is also no, then what's the difference between a civilisation and a nation?

[TechWins]

I think it's better to say that the Americans and the English, and also the Candians (maybe except Quebec) and Australians and New Zealanders are all part of one civilisation, better termed the Anglo-Saxon civilisation.

Well, if you were to exclude Quebec you would then have to exclude all of these other nations. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and USA are not apart of the Britain civ. Just becuase they have influences from the Britain civ doesn't mean they are apart of the Britain civ. Take the Canadians for example, they have Indian, British, and French civ influences. Yet they are being called a Britain civ. All of these nations are not apart of the Britain civ because they have enough influences from other civs that they have become their own civ.

[KrazyHorse]

TW, answer my question: are Austria and Germany members of different civs? There's more of a difference between them than there is between the US and Britain.

[hetairoi22]

What a stupid discussion!

ALL nations are unique in some way or another. Just because Germany is simular to Austria, Brazil has the same language as the Spanish and USA was once an English colony doesn't mean thay have no RIGHT to be in a computer game!

Stupis, stupid, stupid thread...

[KrazyHorse]

Bugger off. We're having an informative discussion about what constitutes a civilisation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's true that a lot of these similarities apply to many nations, but if they all did to two separate nations, then I would class these nations as being part of the same civilisation. Example: Austria and Germany. Different nations, same civilisation.

Let's take another example: Sweden and Denmark. Different languages, but the other 5 similarities still hold, with the differences being roughly equivalent to the differences between the US and Britain. I'd still classify them as the same civilisation. You can't apply the term "civilisation" to every nation that crops up; being of a different civilisation implies having a markedly different lifestyle, history and culture. I don't see the fundamental differences between the US and Britain which exist between, say, France and Britain.

read de tocqueville - for example on the subject of an inclination towards broad theorizing, which the french do a lot of, and which is alien to the british - he finds the americans right in between, no closer to the british than to the french.

and i daresay the role of classical music in our high culture, well not quite making us Germans, makes us at least as close to the germans as to the British.

and the role of advanced art makes us as close to the french as to the british.

and our informality, and sometimes naive openness, some have claimed make us closer to Russian (!!!!!!) than to any west europeans.

the notion that american civ is part of british civ is based on allowing the commonality of language to blind one to all other cultural/civilizational factors.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
TW, answer my question: are Austria and Germany members of different civs? There's more of a difference between them than there is between the US and Britain.

Have you read much about turn of the century austria-hungary, there is a school of thought (fairly) controversial associated with the historian Schorske, that sees austria as definitely a different culture than Germany, and one that has remarkable parallels with the US!!!!!

LOTM

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by hetairoi22
Brazil has the same language as the Spanish

Portugese is the first language of Brazil

and very small numbers of Welsh who are incomprehensible to the rest of the country

With the just the variety in "English" accents there are many people who cannot understand what each other is saying. For example Geordies, Scousers and Cockneys speak the same words but different language.

[TechWins]

KH,

I can't answer your question with giving an ignorant answer, I'm not too familiar with the Austrian background. If you say there is a bigger difference between Germany and Austria than there is between the US and Britain then I would say Germany and Austria are seperate civs. I say this because US and Britain are different enough from each other to be considered different civs. Why again because the US as adopted their own way of being. If the game did stop pre-20th century then the US shouldn't be included. The US hadn't truely molded together their own civ until this past century. Before this century the civ was a Britain based civ. Now with all these influences coming about into this civ of Britain's there has been a new civ created, the US civ.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
1: Not all British people speak English as their first language. There are large numbers of immigrants in England who do not, and very small numbers of Welsh who are incomprehensible to the rest of the country.

2: The British system has less State intervention in the economy than any of the G7 countries except for the US. The British and American systems are remarkably similar when compared to the rest of the world, and not just in terms of laws: also in terms of the actual state of both economies.

yeah since maggie thatcher. pre-1979, when UK was still socialist, this was not true.

3: Constitutional monarchy: whatever. The only real difference between the two is the separation of the "legislative" and "executive" branches. Compare the two systems to the actual functioning of any non-european state, and see how similar they are.

compared to non-european states? well if you're saying US is part of Western Civ, I agree. Along with Germany, Spain, France, and Britain.

4: Britain is barely "aligned" with the EU. They haven't traded in their currency, and on security issues the Brits are far closer to the US than they are to France.
?

NO common currency - but common external tariffs, no internal tariffs, common labor market, etc Britain is very much aligned with EU. Or can i quote you when i apply for a job in Germany?

AS for security - yes UK is closer to US than France on security issues. But then so is Germany, and not that long ago Germany was generally closer to US on security issues than UK. Does that make US German? Do you remember 1973, when OPEC banned oil exports to US and Netherlands, but rewarded France and UK with larger rations? Did that make US Dutch?

6: Jesus, you're deliberately being obtuse here. I didn't say that they were a unified State; I said that they were members of the same civilisation. Answer my question: are Austria and Germany both members of the same civilisation? If not, are there any two separate countries which can be considered membes of the same civilisation? If the answer to this is also no, then what's the difference between a civilisation and a nation?

Er, uhm, states have armies, leaders, ministers, declarations of war, etc all of which civs do not have

Clearly the protagonists in "civilization" are states, not civilizations.

LOTM

[KrazyHorse]

I think maybe the problem here is just one of definitions. I think it takes a lot to distinguish two civs from each other. Some people here think it takes less. To me, civilisation is a term which is: broader than culture, deeper than nationhood and with more of a "real" existence in people's hearts than historical relationships. It is, in short, a way of life.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
6: Jesus, you're deliberately being obtuse here. I didn't say that they were a unified State; I said that they were members of the same civilisation. Answer my question: are Austria and Germany both members of the same civilisation? If not, are there any two separate countries which can be considered membes of the same civilisation? If the answer to this is also no, then what's the difference between a civilisation and a nation?

there is a western civilization. it includes all of the european origin peoples who speak Romance, germanic or celtic languages, as well those of non-european origin who have assimilated into those societies. It arguably includes also those slavic societies whose religion is roman catholic - poland, czechs, slovaks, croats and slovenes. The relationship of russia and other orthodox slavic countries is a matter of some controversy, as is that of Greece. And that of Latin American countries where the native civilization is still very strong, notably Mexico.

The western civ includes within itself numerous cultures. these cultures can be roughly divided by language, but the division of languages among states with different histories and cultural orientations leaves some complexity.

For example Viennese culture was, arguably very different from German culture, however the culture of German speakers within the Austria empire, in tyrol or the sudetenland ,for example was much more "german" than "viennese" complicating the picture of an "austrian" culture. Many would see strong parallels among the scandinavian states in attitudes to politcs, economy, morality etc while others would see Sweden as fairly distinctive from Norway and Denmark. Historically catholic flanders was distinctive from protestant holland, but the growth of the catholic population in holland and the rise of secularism may lessen this distinctiveness. Parallel issues are raised by the relation of France to Walloonia and to Swiss (but francophone, but protestant) Geneva.

These issues are not idle today, as a Northern League asserts the distinctiveness of Northern Italy from the South, and as Scotland struggles towards autonomy.

And clearly there are issues of scale and geography here - a country of the size and degree of physical isolation of the US is capable of attaining a degree of cultural distinctiveness that is not possible for say, Norway vis a vis Denmark. Nor do any of these nations have the demographic diversity of the United States. In this, as in scale, the only good comparison in Europe is Austria-Hungary, and that is coloured by the rift between Vienna and the rest of German Austria - a rift for which nothing comparable exists in the US vis a vis UK. While Vienna was cosmopolitan, heterogeneous, and very Jewish, the tyrol, sudeten etc were homogeneous, provincial, relatively anti-semitic, and very German.
In the US, otoh, the provincial, uncosmopolitan sections are also distinctly less anglophile than the cosmpolitan great cities.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I think maybe the problem here is just one of definitions. I think it takes a lot to distinguish two civs from each other. Some people here think it takes less. To me, civilisation is a term which is: broader than culture, deeper than nationhood and with more of a "real" existence in people's hearts than historical relationships. It is, in short, a way of life.

and i think if you look more closely at the hearts and way of life of Americans, you would see why they object so strenuoulsy to being considered a part of "english" civilization.

LOTM

[TechWins]

It is, in short, a way of life.

I too believe this, take my quote for instance "Why again because the US as adopted their own way of being.". I guess I believe the US has their own way of being and you don't. You feel that their way of being is very similar to Britain that you consider these two nations one civ. Well, that's fine, it's all a matter of opinion.

[KrazyHorse]

Good point on the difference between "Civilization" civs and real-world. Never was arguing against the inclusion of Americans as civ in the game, or for their lumping-in with the Brits, though. It's obvious that the game delineates the progress of a nation rather than a civilisation; maybe this point should be brought up for those who argue against the inclusion of th Iroquois on the basis of their admittedly tenuous standing as a civilisation.

Hmm..Western civilisations are fairly homogenous on the whole, but I find your listing of attributes a rather bizarre argument.

and i daresay the role of classical music in our high culture, well not quite making us Germans, makes us at least as close to the germans as to the British.

and the role of advanced art makes us as close to the french as to the british.

and our informality, and sometimes naive openness, some have claimed make us closer to Russian (!!!!!!) than to any west europeans

Now, the first two points are strange. Are you claiming that classical music and "advanced" art have more impact in the States than in Britain? I'd put things the other way 'round. As a matter of fact, in terms of music/art, I'd basically call the Americans "more British than the British".

The third point is slightly facetious. Southern Germans are notoriously more friendly than Northern Germans, but it does nothing toward making them different civs.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Hmm..Western civilisations are fairly homogenous on the whole, but I find your listing of attributes a rather bizarre argument.



Now, the first two points are strange. Are you claiming that classical music and "advanced" art have more impact in the States than in Britain? I'd put things the other way 'round. As a matter of fact, in terms of music/art, I'd basically call the Americans "more British than the British".

.

Really - wheres the british equivalent of Bernstein, Copeland, Virgil Thomas, Giancarlo Menotti (Italian, but a proud immigrant )
Gershwin, Phillip Glass, Steven Reich, etc, The brits have some lovely orchestras and record labels, but western classical music has "gone native" here rather more strongly than in the UK. And much of the composing/conducting tradition goes back straight to Nadia Boulanger in Paris.

And art - yes wheres the british equivalent to abstract expressionism (the new york school) pop art, op art, etc? New York followed Paris, and to some extent Munich - certainly not London.


British high culture is historically literary - dominated by poetry, drama, the novel and the essay. Despite an occasional reynolds or purcell, the other arts are overshadowed. Not so in the US, where the literary arts are much less dominant over others.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The third point is slightly facetious. Southern Germans are notoriously more friendly than Northern Germans, but it does nothing toward making them different civs.

American openness goes well beyond friendliness, its a deliberate aversion to cynicism and sophistication, an unworldliness that has been noted by Henry James (ever read Daisy Miller?) and that can even effect foreign policy.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

And i dont mean to indicate that US and UK have nothing in common beyond the language - for example there is the heritage of common law, which impacts much of ordinary life and also political thought - but then arent France, Germany, Italy and Spain united in much the same way by the heritage of Roman law? Isnt much that US and UK have in common in terms of individualism, calvinism (including a calvinized anglicanism) etc in contrast to all continental civilization - a franco-germano-spano-italo civ that is statist, oriented towards organized social groups, catholic/lutheran, feudalist, etc?

If you want to divide western civ into an atlantic anglo-american-celtic civ, on the one hand, and a continental civ on the other, that would seem reasonable. What seems unreasonable is the notion that western civ breaks down into french, german, spanish, italian and english and that american is a subset of english. On many attributes the US is distinct from English - on others the US is similar to English, but all the continental cultures are similar to each other. Only on language is US the same as English, while all continental cultures are different from each other.

LOTM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Really - wheres the british equivalent of Bernstein, Copeland, Virgil Thomas, Giancarlo Menotti (Italian, but a proud immigrant )
Gershwin, Phillip Glass, Steven Reich, etc, The brits have some lovely orchestras and record labels, but western classical music has "gone native" here rather more strongly than in the UK. And much of the composing/conducting tradition goes back straight to Nadia Boulanger in Paris.

And art - yes wheres the british equivalent to abstract expressionism (the new york school) pop art, op art, etc? New York followed Paris, and to some extent Munich - certainly not London.


British high culture is historically literary - dominated by poetry, drama, the novel and the essay. Despite an occasional reynolds or purcell, the other arts are overshadowed. Not so in the US, where the literary arts are much less dominant over others.

LOTM

Lets see: Handel (immigrant but proud), Holst, Purcell, Elgar, Sullivan,...

The US and Britain both have a lack of good composers.

Abstract art came mainly from France, Spain and Britain, and abstract expressionism is almost wholly an American invention.

In the US as well, the written word is the main venue for art. If anything, you're making my point for me. Both American and British cultural traditions are founded in poetry and prose. Hemingway, Steinbeck, Poe, Clemens, etc. Too many to name, they are the heirs of a literary tradition of story-telling.

[General Ludd]

I think the problem here is that everyone is just bickering about minor technicalities and not actually saying why americans belong or do not belong in Civilisation 3... unless you aren't talking about the game, in which case it should be in the off topic forum. as the last thing we need is another irrelevant politcal flame war.

[kolpo]

I think that whatever something is a civilization has nothing to do with or you like them or of they have a seperated culture(Greek and Romans had also lot's in common btw). In my view:A civilization: Is a Nation or Federation(or even confederation) that has in a certain period of history had much influence on a big region around him.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Bugger off. We're having an informative discussion about what constitutes a civilisation.

You bugger off, he made a valid point if you would just look beyond the calling of this discussion a "stupid" discussion... oh small minded person.

Anything can be constituted a Civilization.

The real discussion we are having here is whether "America" is a major enough and different enough civilization from England to be included.

Consider the differences; England- large English/Viking/Arabic population
America- Large English/German/Spanish/Mexican/Norwegan,Danish,Swedish/Arabic/Asiatic population

[DarkCloud]

Good Composers!

If you mean rock and roll- England and Britan have many.

If you mean classical:

AMERICA-
George Gershwin
Ira Gershwin
(and a few other famous New York musicians whose names I forget for the moment because I don't often listen to classical)
The March King*John Phillip Susa* (either German or American)

[Grumbold]

If we want to go modern, what more proof do you need than the Beatles?

I think we stopped arguing about America/US as a Civ3 playable nation about a hundred posts ago, didn't we? Now we're trying to distinguish what everyone believes is the difference between a nation, a culture and a civilisation and whether the US is a separate entity on all three counts?

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Originaly posted by Osweld

Try reading my posts again, there are 2 points that you seem to have overlooked.

1.
How about trying to debate in a more civil fashion?
there is no debate.
2.
quote: I don't believe anyone (I certainly am not, anyways)is trying to say that Americans are not civilised or that they are not a real country


im sorry to give you the impression that I was asking you to tell me why America is not a Civilization.. I wasn’t, if you read closely I asking anyone to tell me why. It’s a simple request I think. And I disagree with you, I believe that there are some people here that think America is not a Civilization and I would like them to tell me why.


quote: Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN Ever heard of America's war for independance. INDEPENDANCE !!

Originally Posted by Jellydonunt

If you're going to make such a big deal about independence, at least spell it correctly.

OH MY GOD ! ! ! YOUR SO GREAT, I WORSHIP YOU OH LORD. Yeah man your so cool you corrected my spelling. I don’t like when people do that. Look lets take a reality check, were not in grade school, and don’t give me that retarded post saying “ummm maybe you should go back to grade school”, only a 4 year old would come back with that. I don’t think its priority number one to make sure we spell every word correctly and it doesn’t have anything to do with intelligence.

quote: As in hey we are our own country now aka civilization.

Okay, so the Marshall Islands, a recent breakaway republic from the US now has its own culture, simply because it is a separate country, but Guam doesn't because it's still part of the US. But Palau is because it broke off. So is Micronesia. But not American Samoa. And the day after North and South Korea became separate nations, they had separate civilizations. Same for West/East Germany, etc. Or perhaps its any entity that CONSIDERS itself an independent nation, like TIbet or North Cyprus. But then is Texas its own civilization?

Maybe. I believe once a Country develops its own self image they are a country, I think being separated by an ocean makes this much easier. And please stop with this is state X its own civilization. No its part of America Dumb @ss, if it decided to pack its bags and leave then potentially it could be its own civilization.

quote: Dont give me that bull either. Stop making up this random jiberish. Blah blah blah blah. Ohhh they were a colony ohhh blah blah blah they speak english they are part of the english civilization ohhh nooo blah blah blah Shut up.

Convincing. Firstly, the word is "gibberish." Well they inherited English culture from being, well, English to begin with. I don't think you can spell "honour" without a "u" and fly a different flag (albeit with the same colours) and consider yourself a new civilization. I assure you this is not a forum for flaming/spam so I would advise you not to make such childish comments.

Excuse me I was merely referring to posts that are just annoying to me like this one above. Thank you again for correcting my spelling my good little 5th grader. I really don’t care if I spell jiberish correctly on a website, I doubt by misspelling a word I will be cast in the pits of hell. Secondly and I will not repeat myself Language does not mater. Ok just to make sure you read that, LANGUAGE DOES NOT MATTER. Ok read that again and again till you have successfully read it.


quote: Opps sorry, i dont like lame reasoning. Simple solution, stop posting lame reasons.
Look who's posting.


Actually I find my posts quite funny, Im having fun, I suppose you could say this is my way of coping during this long wait for Civ3. And I didn’t give any reasoning, I gave 2 facts and the rest were my opinions. Tell me where I gave a lame reason. Please tell me. Unless you were referring to yourself.

Originally posted by Joseph1944
America very minor contribution to the world.
First to installed a Steam Engine in a Ship/Boat
First country to build a Machine Gun
First country with a Telegraph
First to lay a cable between two Continents
First country with a Telephone
First country with Electrical Lights
First country to build an Airplane that flew on it’s own power source.
First country to fly faster than the speed of sound.
First country to build a Airplane that flew in space.
First country to build an Airplane that routinely flys above 80,000 ft at mach 3 + (2,010 mph). Actually it is much faster, but they won’t tell us how fast.
First country to produce a Nuclear Chain Reaction
First country to build a Nuclear Power Ship.
First country to install a Nuclear Power Reator in an Airplane for testing.
First country to build an airplane that will fly 10,000 miles on one tank of gas.
First country to send a Man to the Moon. Hmmm the only country to sent a Man to the Moon.
I of course realize these are very minor in world scope of thing.


Your way off there, that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
and its not how much it mattered to the world, it gives us our own image or culture. We accomplished these things as Americans with American Pride. Not English or any other country.


Originally posted by Krazyhorse
1 Are the Americans different enough from the British to be termed a separate civilisation? IMHO, no. Neither is Canada, nor Australia, nor New Zealand, etc.


I think the answer is yes, how can you ignore what the Americans have accomplished, you cant just not put them in. Sure there are other countries that deserve just as much to be in as much as the United States but are not in. I think all countries, Civilizations, races, nations, or whatever should be in but they are not


2 Maybe in another thousand years or so the Americans and the British will have diverged enough to be considered members of different civilisations.


I totally disagree with you. I am not English, I am not part of the English Civilization, I am part of the American Civilization. Don’t tell me what I am. If you’re an American and you think your part of the English civilization that is fine with me. If your not and you haven’t even been to America then what right do you have to say anything in this matter, you don’t know. There are thousands if not millions of people who consider America to be a different civilization than England so obviously we are considered members of different civilizations already. I guess only you don’t consider America to be a civilization, that’s fine with me.

Posted by KrazyHorse

3 b)post something which follows accepted rules of grammar and spelling, either American or British. Most in need of rectification (that's fixin', to you) is the constant stream of run-on sentences you foist upon us. Actually, your entire punctuation scheme is very...creative. A sub-problem which is very prevalent amongst the semi-literate is the lack of differentiation between homophones, namely the possessive article "your" and the verb phrase contraction "you're". Next in importance is the atrocious spelling you've displayed so far. Finally, once these are fixed, there remains the question of style.

I love how you assume I’m stupid. That’s funny. I assume your just poking fun. I guess you didn’t realize that my posts were meant to tee some people off dig under their skin and start eating their flesh. Which I see your trying to do to me. I don’t mind. Its fair enough. One thing about me is that I type fast, I think fast. I don’t care much about how it reads. I kind of change my style of writing when it comes to message boards, I sub words in. I assume that you people are smart enough to understand what I’m saying, if not too bad, don’t read my posts, I don’t care. And again people continue to mock my spelling. I guess I invited it since I left you no other option since I’m right.

Originally posted by Tniem

And if you think spearman fighting for the US is weird, what about Hamurabi controlling nuclear warheads?

This is Great, Hes absolutely right, why didn’t I think of it. “Err I gues cuz im a dumb redneck err, D-u-m spells dumb”

originally posted by Tingkai
The temper tantrums from people like Draco

Hmm im sorry I gave that impression, I just have fun posting like that, I can be just as intelligent as any of you, I simply chose to act like an idiot (if that’s how you think I acted).



Posted by Tingkai
1. All British people speak English. Many Americans do not (they speak Spanish, Cantonese, Italian, etc.)
2. The British economy is a welfare state, the American economy is not.
3. The British political system is a constitutional monarchy, the American system is not. The British Prime Minister is determined by the political party that gets the most seats, the American president is directly elected. The U.S. has a federal-state government system, Britain does not.
4) Britain is aligned with the EU, the U.S. is not. The U.S. intervened in Vietnam, Britain did not, etc.
5) The vast majority of British people have extensive roots in Britain. A sizeable segment of the American population have no roots in Britain.
6. An inextricably intertwined history together? Well, I guess if you are referring to being at war (War of 1812). Did the Brits get actively involved in the U.S. civil war, no. Did the U.S. help Britain fight its colonial wars, no. When Britain went to war in 1914 and 1939, did the U.S. immediately jump in on Britain's side, no.

Congrats KrazyHorse on proving the American civilization is different from the British Civ


LOL LOL LOL This is great, good job Tingkai

[General Ludd]

In short, what he is trying to say with that huge mess of a post is: "I'm a troll".

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
You bugger off, he made a valid point if you would just look beyond the calling of this discussion a "stupid" discussion... oh small minded person

Really? Here's his post:

What a stupid discussion!

ALL nations are unique in some way or another. Just because Germany is simular to Austria, Brazil has the same language as the Spanish and USA was once an English colony doesn't mean thay have no RIGHT to be in a computer game!

Stupis, stupid, stupid thread...

According to what I read from his post, nation=civilisation, and if we can't see that, then we are "Stupis, stupid, stupid". At any rate...

So: is the greater NYC area a civilisation in and of itself? It is unique, has a different method of speech, hates New Jersey, wants crime to go down, etc. It fulfills all of the requirements you stated for a civilisation, and if it existed in a vacuum I would consider it one, but a larger viewpoint shows us that it shares so much with many other towns that we must consider them part of a larger civilisation.