A Civilization - Page 4

Tingkai · August 17, 2001, 04:25

Kolpo:

Perhaps you should send a message to the Queen and tell her to change her website. If what you say is true, then her website contains incorrect information.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/index.htm

splangy · August 17, 2001, 05:17

just becouse the name of the game is civilizaton dosen't meen that they actually portray civilizations, they show countries, otherwise the spanish would'nt be called spain, they'ed be called the spanish, there cities would include mexico city etc...

the point is not really whether americas a civ, its whether they are a country, witch they obviusly are.

by the way, in my beleif america is a civ, simply becouse they have established a culture, music, art, language, etc that are very different from the english. Do the americans have tea time???

kh- yes, i probably made a few gramatical mistakes, but as someone else pointed out, pointing that out is a very childish way of saying that you have no real answer to the question becouse there right. Making fun of people becouse they make a few mistakes, calling them a troll, etc is just a very child-like way of saying that you have no way of proving your point!

you will probably ignore my post becouse im right.

how very sad

Miatezhnyi · August 17, 2001, 05:27

Ideas of civilization, culture and nation are open to a great deal of interpretation. What qualities, tangible or intangible, pertain to the definition of any of these things boil down to a matter of personal opinion. There is no academic consensus on these matters and there won't be any in the near future. Most of the debate in this forum has centered on where to draw the line between a mere nation and something as grand as a civilization, particularly regarding the seemingly controversial inclusion of the American civilization.

Are the United States and Britain different civilizations? It depends on where you draw the line. Debates over the significance of common ancestry, customs, origins, etc. seem to dominate the discussion. Supporters of the American civ suggest that the US and UK have diverged significantly enough while their opponents do not. It just depends on where you draw the line. It can also be argued that Britain, France, Germany and perhaps Spain are all representative of one civilization....a blend of Roman Laws. Germanic tradition, Western Christianity, similar governments most of the time. The territory of France and Germany once ruled by Charlemagne. England once ruled more territory on the continent than the islands....and so on and so forth. It revolves around whose drawing the line.

As someone pointed out early....the game is customizable. Even more to the point its just a game. Have fun with it. Civ can never be totally historically accurate, even the best designed scenario loses its accuracy once the first move is made. If you don't like the Americans....take them out....don't play them. If one of your favorites is missing put them in. Personally I wished Firaxis would have included more civilizations, nations, or cultures to choose from. Hopefully, an expansion pack will follow.

For those of you trying to conduct an honest intellectual debate on the topic...good luck to you....though, I strongly doubt anyone will convince their opponents of where the line should be drawn.

Grumbold · August 17, 2001, 07:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
Tell me Kolpo, who won the last election for the British head of state? And I'm not talking about the Prime Minister, who is not the head of state in the British system.

Please explain why this is important when the Prime Minister and the Government of the day decide all the laws that are going to be introduced and just give the Queen a speech to read? How namy centuries has it been since the last time the Head of State issued their own laws or Royal commands?

Quote:

While you're at it Kolpo, maybe you can tell us when the Brits had an election for their upper legislature, the House of Lords. You know, the people who can determine which laws are created.

The House of Lords cannot propose laws or prevent laws being passed. They can only ask the government to think again about laws that are being proposed and suggest amendments. If the Government reject those changes they can push through their legislation unchanged provided they have a majority vote in the House of Commons.

You obviously don't know as much about our Democratic system as you think you do.

Quote:

Do the americans have tea time???

If you think the average English person has "tea time" then you are mistaken. I'll resist the temptation to respond with an equally inaccurate American stereotype

Tingkai · August 17, 2001, 08:18

Grumbold:

I stand corrected on the power of the House of Lords, although its power was only diminished at the beginning of the 20th Century. So to claim that Britain invented modern democracy is incorrect. The Americans had a fully democractic government long before Britain.

As for the Queen's power, it is open to debate. Back in the 30's Macdonald (sp?) lost support from his party members. He negotiated with the Conservatives, got enough support and then went to the King and requested permission to form a new government. Permission was granted and the government changed without an election. The king became the king maker and there was nothing the public could do.

Many Australians are still bitter about a gov-gen who they say arbitrarily called for new elections in the 1970s. The Gov-Gen is the Queen's representative. I'm not sure about her involvement, but you can see that so-called ceremonial heads of state do have real power.

The point of all this is that Britain, Canada, Australia are still not complete democracies. And there are those who say thank god for that.

Grumbold · August 17, 2001, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
As for the Queen's power, it is open to debate. Back in the 30's Macdonald (sp?) lost support from his party members. He negotiated with the Conservatives, got enough support and then went to the King and requested permission to form a new government. Permission was granted and the government changed without an election. The king became the king maker and there was nothing the public could do.

All the decisions are still taken by the Parliamentary figures that the populace have voted for. There are many occasions when Parliament formally asks the monarchs permission to do something. In reality the monarch has no choice but to comply since Parliament would just strip any remaining powers away by law if it felt it needed to. We still have medaieval laws legalising the shooting of Welshmen provided the location, timing and method is done correctly, but nobody seriously expects them to be used as a legal defence in a murder trial

It is also easy to suggest that the USA is a republic, not a true democracy. See http://darren.lib.utah.edu/democracy.htm for some of the arguements. The objections raised there are about as strong as the quibbles over whether Parliament is sufficiently supreme in the UK. I'll leave it to political intellectuals to debate and go back to contemplating Civ3

tniem · August 17, 2001, 15:38

In reality neither the US or England are a democracy. They are both Republics.

A democracy = one vote per issue.

When is the last time in the US you go to vote on a tax cut federally? I never have gotten that chance. See we elect represanitives so please stop saying that either nation is the father of modern democracy.

down th' pub · August 17, 2001, 16:15

Quote:

When is the last time in the US you go to vote on a tax cut federally?

November 2000

Lord Magnus · August 18, 2001, 03:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
LOL oswald your funny

Why didnt you just say this in the first place, im fine with this.

But you see the problem here is that i am right and you dont realize this. Now only a fool would think that he is always right and never admit when he is wrong, but i am no fool. You can say that it doesnt seem right or even say that you dont like america, that is fine, its your opinion. I am very pro others opinions. But a person who claims that america is not a civilization is either lieing or ignorant or a TOTAL FREAKING RETARD. A liar is most likely joking so its not really a lie. Ignorance is ok with me i dont mind an ignorant person. And i dont mind a Total freaking retard either. Everyone has their opinions, but im sorry to say that opinions are not going to change the fact that America is a civilization. Do you think im wrong, Well prove it?!?! I could give you a long list of acheivments that Americans have created as Americans. If anyone can prove that America is not a civilization then i will admit i was wrong. Im always up for new things to learn. I would like to learn why America is not a civilization please tell me.

This guy should be featured on http://www.somethingawful.com

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
I am very pro others opinions.

riiiight...I think normal people (ie: most of Apolyton) refer to it as "freedom of speech"

Here's a tip: STAY IN SCHOOL!!!

Immortal Wombat · August 18, 2001, 05:07

I agree with KrazyHorse here, but I think the argument was lost to the "American-is-a-civ" posters when the Civ in question was named the English Civ. Its not. The only factor where that name has any relevance is the language.

America IMO is merely part (and I admit a major part) of the Western civilisation that has been present for the last 500 years, it may not have been a very united civilisation at some points, but in terms of Civ gaming, the flow of trade, technologies, population, and now with the UN and NATO, arms and military force, it is questionable whether the combined EU/USA/British commonwealth (please make sure you know the meaning of that word before replying) is actually more than one civilisation spread over 50 countries. Sure there are differences, but so there are between NY and Louisiana. America has not changed sufficiently for it to be a separate civ, but the civ it does belong to, it almost certainly leads.

Whoever has pointed out that this thread has descended into the farsical was correct.

Dauphin · August 18, 2001, 07:50

The Americans had a fully democractic government long before Britain

When did America first offer all women the vote in national elections?

UK - 1928. (although in 1918 any women over 30 could vote)
USA - 1920

My reference says NZ was first in 1893

It suprised me to see that Canada only gave full suffrage in 1950!

Another funny was that New Jersey gave women the vote in 1776, and then repealed the law shortly afterwards.

Draco aka Se7eN · August 18, 2001, 10:30

Hey lord magnus that site is funny, thanks for pointing it out.

by the way everyone, did anyone read this post at all, i think its a better way of looking at things.

Quote:

I think im gonna join those who say this thread is or has become lame. Im not saying that your points are not good, they are, but this thread has become ridiculus. (i thought a couple of tingkai's posts were great) The same thing keeps being said over and over and over again only in different ways. Its a dead conversation, no one is gonna change their mind about this subject, it seems like its a matter of opinion. ok i got an idea. Maybe the word Civilization realy doesnt exist, hear me out. Maybe you have to add a word describing a time period before Civilization for it to be valid. Like in histry books, they usually dont just say Civilization they say Anchant Civilization or Moderen Civilization. Or maybe like Middle age's Civilization. So America would be a Modern Civilizaton, cause America has only been around for just over 200 years. I think most of you people refer to a civilization as being a Anchient or middle ages civilization. I bet none of you can name a Modern civilization that couldnt be considered a Anchient or Middle ages Civilization too. Unless of course you consider America to be a Modern Civilization.

Sun Zi 36 · August 18, 2001, 11:57

For those who are making arguments about the achievements of the USA as a nation (whether they were the first democratic country or not, whether they have a long list of achievements.....etc), I don't see ANY relevance of that with whether America is a distinct civilization from any country to which it has similar culture. Being able to put a man on the moon, for example, has got nothing to do with how distinct the culture of the American people is. Whether a country was the FIRST to achieve anything has got nothing to do with how distinct the culture of the people in that country is.

In order to establish whether a country or a group of people have distinct culture, their CULTURE, which includes: arts, music, literature, ways of living, food, clothing, social life, common ideals etc, has to be analysed and compared with the CULTURES of other groups of people at particular points in time. And from that we could see how similar/different that culture is with other cultures so we could decide where to draw the line.

If anything, this thread is being made pointless by those people who distorted the objective discussion by exerting desparately their strong emotions and subjective opinions on irrelevant points.

DarkCloud · August 18, 2001, 16:32

Distinction: note:

"reactive changes from when the American settlers in the 1600s met the Indians is the heart of what made them Americans rather than transplanted Europeans. The constant conflicts with Indians forced the colonists to band togehter and in time gave them a sense of having shared a common history. And later, when they broke away from Great Britan, they used the image of th Indian to symbolize the freedom and independence they sought for themselves."

Documents that inspired the Constitution:

"Mayflower Compact"
House of Burgesses 1619 delegates met in Jamestown and from that sprung representative Government.

Ozymandias · August 18, 2001, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by kolpo

The Bristish INVENTED modern democracy. They where the first long term lasting modern democracy. And Greece was NEVER a real democracy. A big part of the population wasn't allowed to vote: slaves, poor people, ... .

You raise a very interesting point here, and one I've often wondered about in Civilization terms --

In the modern world, almost everyone has forgotten that a democracy and a republic are different -- we certainly use the terms interchangeably enough in the US. HOWEVER, whereas democracy represents universal suffrage, in a republic, political power is typically only held by property-owning males of the dominant ethnicity. So, many of the ancient Greek city-states were indeed republics, and America during World War I was a republic, and is now a democracy.

I'm intrigued that Suffrage was a wonder in the earlier Civs, since suffrage is all that distinguishes a democracy from a republic. So perhaps Suffrage should be a minor wonder which every Civilization could "build" at some post-industrial point after discovering the republic.

Yours from the Demos,

Ozymandias

tniem · August 19, 2001, 01:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I agree with KrazyHorse here, but I think the argument was lost to the "American-is-a-civ" posters when the Civ in question was named the English Civ. Its not. The only factor where that name has any relevance is the language.

America IMO is merely part (and I admit a major part) of the Western civilisation that has been present for the last 500 years, it may not have been a very united civilisation at some points, but in terms of Civ gaming, the flow of trade, technologies, population, and now with the UN and NATO, arms and military force, it is questionable whether the combined EU/USA/British commonwealth (please make sure you know the meaning of that word before replying) is actually more than one civilisation spread over 50 countries. Sure there are differences, but so there are between NY and Louisiana. America has not changed sufficiently for it to be a separate civ, but the civ it does belong to, it almost certainly leads.

O.K. I can agree to this. In fact I believe you. The US is definitely a part of Western Civilization.

However in game terms, you are not going to merge all Western Civ nations that fit into it into one civ are you? No Germans, French, English, Americans, Greeks, or Romans. It just isn't going to happen. Instead of 16 civs you would have like five. Western, Native Americans, Asian, Mesopatamia, and Africa. Isn't going to happen.

So in civ game terms, America would be a Civ, while in reality it only fits into a bigger one. I can agree to this.

tniem · August 19, 2001, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by down th' pub

Quote:

When is the last time you voted for a federal tax cut?

November 2000

No wonder the old ladies in Palm Beach were so confused, they didn't have trouble with lining up holes they were busy trying to figure out how much money they would get from the tax cut.

Come on. As I recall Bush promised a 1.6 trillion cut. What congress passed was 1.2 Now it really doesn't matter the real amount, it just that if you voted for the tax cut in November, then why did congress have to pass it this spring? Why did Bush have to sign it?

Maybe because, you didn't vote for the proposal but instead a represanitive that you knew that would support it. Yeah, that is probably it. Which, means you participated in a Republic not a democracy.

KrazyHorse · August 19, 2001, 02:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
It suprised me to see that Canada only gave full suffrage in 1950!

1949, IIRC.

My province was...a bit backwards when it came to women's rights. Small towns, Catholic Church, etc.

Dauphin · August 19, 2001, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
1949, IIRC.

My province was...a bit backwards when it came to women's rights. Small towns, Catholic Church, etc.

The difference of a year may be that suffreage was given in '49 and the first elections were in '50(?)

Given Canada's history in these sorts of things I would have thought it to be one of the first to give women full rights.

d_dudy · August 19, 2001, 10:10

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

1949, IIRC.

My province was...a bit backwards when it came to women's rights. Small towns, Catholic Church, etc.

blame on it the catholics

never heard that one before

DarkCloud · August 19, 2001, 12:13

Explain further about why the Catholic church is backwards?...
They may have been, but they are no longer, thanks to Vatican II

Dauphin · August 19, 2001, 12:48

They may have been, but they are no longer, thanks to Vatican II

The sequel to Vatican, coming to a theatre near you this September.

KrazyHorse · August 19, 2001, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by d_dudy
blame on it the catholics

never heard that one before

Learn some Quebec history before you snore. Just about every source will point to the Church as the major conservative force in this province's history. I have nothing against the Church, and developed great respect for it during my education at a Jesuit high school.

d_dudy · August 19, 2001, 20:03

"F*** the creationists"

sounds.....respectful

KrazyHorse · August 19, 2001, 20:55

Catholics aren't "creationists" in the sense I mean...at least not the ones I know. Creationists can kiss my sweet little buttocks, not because they're religious, but because they attempt to pass off pseudo-scientific mummery as fact. This probably isn't the place to start this if you are, you know, one of them.

If you want to discuss, come to the OT and join in one of the endemic "Religion vs. Science" threads.

I think we've strayed far enough off the topic as is...

faded glory · August 19, 2001, 21:12

Yea debate the existence of the almighty God in the OT forum...

I hate the way Craptivision did the civs. I mean, there was never a Nicaraugan or Cuban Civ? Or Nigerian/Brazil.

What gives here?

REAL civilizations

1) Celts
2)Hebrew
3)Arab
4)Persian
5)Mongol
6)Saxon
7)Aryan
8)Mayan
9)Slav

etc...

Sid seems to like picking Nationalities here, and not Civilizations..Europe would have been lumped in 3 categories. Celts, Saxon, and Aryan (until Mongol invaders came, bringing Slavs)

Still Civ3 looks interesting. I just hope they take a combat page from CTP and use the stack-attack feature. Much better than the one employed in Civ2

ancient · August 19, 2001, 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

United enemy- Iraq,China,etc.
United Goals- destroy Iraq,China,etc.

WTF are you talking about? ethnic enemy not united enemy and i dont consider china a united enemy or an ethnic enemy to united states (only to dumbass republicans) United states govternment is really horrible..

d_dudy · August 19, 2001, 22:40

yes, our govterment is stupid to dislike people who run their fighter jets into our planes

d_dudy · August 19, 2001, 22:42

damn it, i misspelled govternment

Tingkai · August 20, 2001, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Saddam

REAL civilizations

1) Celts
2)Hebrew
3)Arab
4)Persian
5)Mongol
6)Saxon
7)Aryan
8)Mayan
9)Slav

etc...

I have a feeling I may regret asking this, but Saddam: What is the logic behind your list? Hebrews are a religious group, Aryans are language group, and Persians are a nationality (although I may be wrong about that). What is the common link shared by these groups? Why do you consider each of these groups to be "real" civs?

Just wondering.