America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Arent
Oriel94: You know this is not true.
You continue to divide the world in black and white. People are - as you said - imperfect and thus make errors. There is no inborn "instinctive rejection" of extremism - not in your "anglosphere" and nowhere else. Right wing extremism is a big problem in Usa (I don't know about austalia).

Well, Australia HAS a large problem with right-wing extremism, even more as the USA. For many years, European immigration was stimulated, while colored immigrants were excluded. And what about the Asian refugees who aren't allowed to enter the country? And I believe it was in Queensland where an extremist party has become very large.

Fresno: The netherlands actually gave up most of their votes - it is now population based - and were in favor of this reform.

I know that, it is a good example of what I said. Further, you could mention the German minister of foreign affairs, who said Europe should become a federation, i.e., one big country. And it were the French and the English governments who were against this.

[Sun Zi 36]

"There was a nice idea (a while ago) only to differentiate between 3 civilisations in civ3, namely asiatic, european and islam. "

But when the number of civs u want is 16 u wouldn't want to only have 3 and always play a 3 player game, would you? Actually, if u want u can even just make it one: "the human civilisation" as there are certainly similarities in all human cultures. It all depends on where u want to draw the line or the level of detail u r going to take. I think it would be logical to assume for this discussion the level of detail would be such that the world would be divided into AT LEAST 16 civs.

"Considering the "angloshpere": While there for sure are differences I would not go so far to classify this "anglosphere" as different civilisation... you have to see that there are perhaps even bigger differences between single european countries (and I mean not only political but also cultural)."

"Absolutely. Historically, France and the UK have more in common than France and Germany."

I agree that difference in culture is very important. But i still think "Anglosphere" is valid if u take a finer division. Further, when considering whether a culture should be a civ in civ3, u would not just differentiate the cultures. Surely the Eskimos are very unique in culture even if u take a very broad view of world cultures. But why not include them? Bcos they are not very significant in terms of influence on world history.

So the reason why i think Anglosphere should be a separate civ is that u can define its culture with not a very narrow division yet Anglosphere is very important in influencing world history.

Ah! for once no-one is arguing US should be a separate civ, which is good.

"Historically, France and the UK have more in common than France and Germany."

This is just sidetrack but I'm actually not sure whether this is correct historically. I know the Normans invaded England but the Franks also came from the Germanic tribes. Legal systems of Germany and France remained similar with Civil Law derived from Ancient Rome whereas UK had Common Law developed from customary law. Ideals of the French revolution influenced Germany a lot by Napoleon exporting the revolution. The industrial revolution came earlier in England than in France and Germany which truly industrialised at rather similar times (19th century). France and Germany (not UK) were the founding members of EU and the fact that UK didn't join monetary union makes me think that UK have less in common with France and Germany.

"Right wing extremism is a big problem in Usa (I don't know about austalia). "

Heard of Pauline Hanson? she is extreme right in Australia. Used to be quite popular but is in decline.

As for EU, i seriously dont think UK should be part of it. The European countries need to speak with one voice, but without the UK. The UK just brings in too much American influence to EU (like the English language), so that they can't speak with one independent voice.

[mactbone]

Hehe, the English language is an American influence! Thanks for the laugh.

Where to begin, oh yes, America should be in the game. Wanna know why? Which country has had the most influence in the last 50 years? Which country is known and (and sometimes hated) around the world?

You said earlier that you don't like the American influence brought ny the Brits, ever wonder why you even care about the American influence? It's because America is powerful. In fact I'd argue that right now in historyy it's one of the top 3 most powerful civlizations in the world.

Alright, so we all realize that America in some form should be in the hame (some calling for a conglomeratin) but why do that when there are distinct differences? Maybe the English should combine with the French, considering all the tines the English had French rulers and vice-versa. Germany could be included too, the German language and English are extremely close to each other.

Just remember that you would think it odd if I called Liz ruler of America and Lincoln ruler of England. They ARE different, on fundamental levels.

The reason I think most people are ignoring this is because Civ3 is out. It doesn't matter what you say, they're not changing the game.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
This is just sidetrack but I'm actually not sure whether this is correct historically. I know the Normans invaded England but the Franks also came from the Germanic tribes.

Concerning Germanic influence, I don't see this as a difference among the three countries at all. All three peoples are the descendants of Germanic and Celtic ancestors, although the French culture is more influenced by the Romans as the other two.

However, the Normans did bring a lot of French culture to England. For example, many English words are originally French. Just look at this:

French: gouvernement; exemple; cité; capitale; empereur.
English: government; example; city; capital; emperor.
German: Regierung; Beispiel; Stadt; Hauptstadt; Kaiser.

Legal systems of Germany and France remained similar with Civil Law derived from Ancient Rome whereas UK had Common Law developed from customary law.

All the European countries, including France and Germany, had traditional law before the French Revolution. Napoleon introduced the Roman law, so only England has a different law now. Indeed England is different from the other two at this point, although during the mayor part of history it wasn't.

Ideals of the French revolution influenced Germany a lot by Napoleon exporting the revolution.

The ideals you probably refer to are more the ideals of the Enlightenment. And the Enlightenment occurred both in England and France. The ideals of the French Revolution had nothing to do with Napoleon. In the contrary, Napoleon ended the Revolution and its ideals by establishing a new nobility and crowning himself as emperor.

The industrial revolution came earlier in England than in France and Germany which truly industrialised at rather similar times (19th century). France and Germany (not UK) were the founding members of EU and the fact that UK didn't join monetary union makes me think that UK have less in common with France and Germany.

True, but a more important argument is that France and England were already nations for quite a long time, while Germany was still divided in many separate countries. Power in England and France is still much more centralized as in Germany. England and France were colonial empires, Germany wasn't. Germany fought against England and France during WW2. It has been a dictatorship in the last century, England and France haven't. Furthermore, East-Germany has been under communist rule, while UK and France never suffered from such a regime.

[oriel94]

1) No part of the Anglosphere has ever been host to a totalitarian regime or a *mass* totalitarian party. Almost every continental country has been host to one or both. Why this startling difference? (I know that some particularly vacuous Euro-lefties think the British Tories or US Republican are 'extremist' parties - go figure).

2) Europe can 'speak with one voice' only if its peoples surrender self-government and democracy; and that is precisely how it is being achieved.

3) Yes, individual European states can continue to 'influence' EU policies - in much the same way that colonies can influence the policies of the colonial power.

4) That so many Europeans can see nothing particularly alarming about the EU merely serves, once again, to highlight the cultural/civilizational gap separating the Brits/Anglosphere from the civilization/s of the European mainland.

5) If the European people are so keen to 'speak with one voice', they will only be able to do that when Britain leaves the EU. You should welcome such a development.

6) Pauline Hanson's Party ('One Nation') was not an extreme right-wing party. Most of her policies, *including* her immigration policies would not startle those pathetic Social Democratic parties that have a stranglehold on most of Europe. Her economic policies were leftist-populist (large taxes, large government spending, increased regulation in all spheres, government 'employment creation' projects, lots of government assistance to small business and workers, an independent [non-US-aligned] foreign policy, etc). The only thing that attracted much attention was her immigration policy. She wanted a significant reduction in immigration. Australia already has almost one quarter of its population born overseas, which is the second highest figure in the OECD behind Luxembourg. Australia's immigration rate (per capita) is three times larger than the US. I disagree with her, but to call her 'extreme right' is simply ludicrous. In any event, even at its height her party scored only 10% of the national vote. It is now in steep decline.

[KaiserIsak]

I think USA (not america) should be in the game. But they is definatly not more important then civilizations like Arabs, turks, khmers, spanish, polish, vikings, mongols, dutch and austrians.

But then again they are more important then iroquis, zulus and aztecs.

The best would be to include all this nations, but personally i never play with america in a game (or dont choose them to play against) simply because i dont see any fun in it.
Much more fun with the chinese who really had influence.
This america period is simply the end of the colonial period which we already have Britain and France in.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
I think USA (not america) should be in the game. But they is definatly not more important then civilizations like Arabs, turks, khmers, spanish, polish, vikings, mongols, dutch and austrians.

I agree with most of these, but what about the Polish? You seriously think that Poland has had a greater effect on history than the USA? Methinks the propaganda on this board has gotten to you...

[Sun Zi 36]

"Where to begin, oh yes, America should be in the game. Wanna know why? Which country has had the most influence in the last 50 years? Which country is known and (and sometimes hated) around the world?... You said earlier that you don't like the American influence brought ny the Brits, ever wonder why you even care about the American influence? It's because America is powerful. In fact I'd argue that right now in historyy it's one of the top 3 most powerful civlizations in the world. "

Alright, seems to me someone has just came in from the last page, read one or two posts and just quickly made a reply. I understand, cos this discussion is soooo long that no-one would bother to read them all (especially the pointless ones in the middle). In fact, i addressed all your arguments in my previous posts in the last page (p.7).

U will see that i have highlighted the rhetorical questions quoted. Care to explain how the power of a country has got anything to do with whether it's a civilisation? Country, civilisation. Country, civilisation. Country, civilisation. See the difference?? Country, civilisation. Country is defined by political borders. Civilisation is defined by culture. If groups of people share COMMON CULTURE , they would potentially be part of the same civilisation. How powerful a country has got nothing to do with whether people share common culture within or with-out the country.

"Just remember that you would think it odd if I called Liz ruler of America and Lincoln ruler of England. They ARE different, on fundamental levels."

I actually don't think it odd for Liz or Lincoln to be the ruler of Angloshere.

"Germany could be included too, the German language and English are extremely close to each other."

I think our European friends here will tell u it is not.

"The reason I think most people are ignoring this is because Civ3 is out. It doesn't matter what you say, they're not changing the game."

Is that a statement of self-comfort or relief or what? As far as i m conerned that is just a statement of cowardice and unwillingness to confront an intellectual discussion that reveals truths about issues. The question is whether America SHOULD be in the game. Whether it's already in doesn't support or provide any comfort to the weak argument that it "should" be in.

"The best would be to include all this nations, but personally i never play with america in a game (or dont choose them to play against) simply because i dont see any fun in it."

Again, nations and civilisations are not the same. Especially for multicultural nations and multinational cultures like the US and Anglosphere respectively. In civ2, i only allow America when i want to play a modern game, cos the computer can never sail to the Americas and settle. Dunno about civ3 though.

"You seriously think that Poland has had a greater effect on history than the USA? Methinks the propaganda on this board has gotten to you...

Again, u are implying civilsations are the same as nations, which is not. Only if u can successfully define a civilisation with its culture can u then consider about great effect on history. I would say that people in San Francisco and people in Los Angeles each have greater effect on history than the Zulus or Iroquis. But why are they not civs? Cos their culture is virtually the same.

"The ideals of the French Revolution had nothing to do with Napoleon. In the contrary, Napoleon ended the Revolution and its ideals by establishing a new nobility and crowning himself as emperor."

Actually, Napoleon by his conquests have exported many of the ideals of freedom, etc to Germany and Italy. That's why his campaigns were most successful there. He ended the revolution but didn't end its ideals (eg the Napoleonic Code). His conquests were very important in generating forces of unification in Italy and Germany in the mid 19th century

"England and France were colonial empires, Germany wasn't. Germany fought against England and France during WW2."

Actually Germany did have a colonial empire only much smaller. If u talk about wars, i think u could find England and France fought much more wars against each other than against Germany or Prussia.

Anyway, even if England/France is more similar than France/Germany. i still think it is valid to draw a narrower line to distinguish all three of them and then look at their effect on history. Even on this narrower line, sections within Anglosphere (eg, US, UK, Canada, New Zealand) will still not be distinguishable so Angloshpere should only exist as one civ.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
Again, u are implying civilsations are the same as nations, which is not. Only if u can successfully define a civilisation with its culture can u then consider about great effect on history. I would say that people in San Francisco and people in Los Angeles each have greater effect on history than the Zulus or Iroquis. But why are they not civs? Cos their culture is virtually the same.

How did I imply that nations are the same as civilizations? Poland and the US were both nations the last time I checked...

[Sun Zi 36]

OK, sorry i misunderstood u. If "US and Poland were nations" was ALL that u meant in your last post, then u r correct they are. And since they are nations, and not civilisations, as u agreed, they should not be civs.

But in case that wasn't all that u meant, that u meant US as a nation had more effect on history than Poland so it should be a civ, then i consider your argument completely flawed and i suggest u reread what i said in my last post.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think we're on different wavelengths here. I totally agree with you that, if only distinct civilizations are included in Civ 3, then the US and Poland are both disqualified. They are just nations and each part of a greater civilization. However, I think it is inevitable that some nations will be included in the game. There are only a few distinct civilizations in history, so after a certain point you are going to have to include some nations. I think the US tops the list of nations to be included and that's why I'm not upset about its inclusion in the game.

I had no problem with KaiserIsak saying that the Arabs, Turks, Vikings, Mongols, Spanish, or Khmer are more worthy for inclusion than America; they are all more distinctive culturally than America and probably qualify as "real" civilizations (although there would be much debate even on that, especially with the Mongols or the Vikings). My problem was with the Dutch, Austrians, and the Poles, with Poland being the most flagrant example. These three all seem to be mere nations, IMHO, and therefore would have to compete with the US for a spot in Civ3. America destroys Poland in overall importance and is therefore more worthy of inclusion. We are agreed, however, that the US isn't a civ. I just look at the US as a very worthy nation that got into the game mainly because it was the country that Civ3 was made in. If Firaxis was located in Poland, we would probably be arguing about whether Poland is worthy of being in Civ 3...

[Dauphin]

I think our European friends here will tell u it is not.

Actually English is more a Germanic language that any other. If you look at all the words in a sentence, at random, you will find many German rooted words, more than French.

A lot of the vocabulary of English is French/Latin based but the commonest words, and a majority of the grammar, are German based.

I cannot speak German but if you look up all the small words in this sentence I doubt many are not German.

The expression "Null and Void" is an example of split language heritage. Null and Void mean the same thing but come from different language roots.

[Sun Zi 36]

Big Crunch:
Sorry for my ignorance. I actually just derived it from the post by Fresno above.

"However, the Normans did bring a lot of French culture to England. For example, many English words are originally French. Just look at this:

French: gouvernement; exemple; cit? capitale; empereur.
English: government; example; city; capital; emperor.
German: Regierung; Beispiel; Stadt; Hauptstadt; Kaiser."

I virtually know nothing about this subject so i guess Fresno will respond about this.

Drake: i agree with most of wat u are saying. Arabs, Turks, Spanish are definitely distinct civs. However, I would consider the Poles more distinct than the Americans.

"so after a certain point you are going to have to include some nations."

My perception of civs is probably more narrow than u. I think if u use culture to define civs, u can narrow down to quite a lot of civs. And even then, USA as a whole can't qualify as a civ bcos there are too many different cultures within it. You'll probably single out the minority cultures within the USA b4 u can go even further to separate the majority USA from "Anglosphere".

[Ecthy]

Basically, all languages in Europe are Indo-European languages, which used to be called Indo-Germanic ones...

Indo-European languages are separated into the following families (in Europe, some Indian languages belong to them as well):

Balto-Slav group (Russian, Ukranian, Polish and the like)
Germanic group (English, German, Swedish...)
Celtic group (Bretonic, Galician, Welsh...)
Greek
Albanian
Iranian
Armenian
Romanesque group (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian...)

and there's also the
Indo-Aryan group (Hindi, Bengali, Urdu...)

...due to the fact that the Aryan people (nowadays called Europide) came from northern India/Himalaya region thousands of years ago...

anyway, you see that English and German are relatives... any more pie.. err. questions?

[Dauphin]

Thanks for clearing that up Ec the lion.

I do have two more questions.

What langauge family does Basque fall under or is it completely "alien"?

What language family does Esperanto fall under?

[Dauphin]

DP

[Dauphin]

German: Regierung; Beispiel; Stadt; Hauptstadt; Kaiser

Kaiser is a Latin word.

It derives from Caesar.

So does the Russian Tsar/Csar/Czar.

[Ecthy]

in my book, Basque is listed as a completely independant language... Esperanto... well...

BTW, I find it interesting how French and English use the Latin word imperator for that position while German and Russian use caesar... strange...

[mactbone]

Wheee, I'm taking a linguistics course and I get to use what I've learned!

I. Proto-Indo-European

A. Germanic

1. German
2. English
3. Dutch
4. Danish
5. Swedish
6. Norwegian
7. etc.

B. Celtic

1. Gaelic
2. Irish
3. Welsh
4. etc.

C. Italic (Latin)

1. Italian
2. Spanish
3. French
4. Portugese
5. Romanion
6. etc.

D. Hellenic (Ancient Greek)

1. Greek (They're silly aren't they )

E. Balto-Slavic

1. Baltic

a. Latvian
b. Lithunanian

2. Slavic

a. Russian
b. Polish
c. Czech
d. Bulgarian
e. etc.

F. Indo-Iranian

1. Indic (Sanskrit)

a. Hindi
b. Bengali

2. Iranian

a. Persian

There you go, we should have these 6 civs plus a Chinese, South American tribe and North American tribe civ and we're done
Lot's o' fun!

I think the problem we're having is that right now we don't classify divisions with civilization, we use the term country. That's where everyone's stumbling. We have in our mind that a civ must be old, very old. That's not always the case. From now on I will use the word civ instead of country because it will help you understand.
The American civ is the most widely diverse civ ever, in fact it's diversity is the REASON it can be considered a civ. Consider that the American civ has incorporated the ideas and languages of multiple civs, added a few unique elements then called it their own. Much like the English, Romans, and any other Empire that traded heavily with various lands or had multiple peoples call it home.

BTW, I have my posts per page at 100, so there is no page seven for me, but if you look at page one or so, I posted there

[Fresno]

Oriel99: Your last post made me clear were you stand politically. You seem to be a right-wing conservative with nasty nationalist ideas. Your view on European history is highly colored by these ideas. The way you describe the inhabitants of this "Anglosphere" compared with other Europeans sounds very much alike the übermensch-untermensch-thesis (not the way Nietzsche thought about it, more the way it was interpreted by the Germans in the 1930's). The way you argue that this 'One Nation' party isn't extremist shows you don't really know what right-wing extremist parties normally do. They ALWAYS use populist opinions like the ones you mentioned, and they always focus on immigration, which they always say to be far to high. You say you don't support them, which is good for you. However, some of the things you say about us are simply racist. I hope you are just a teenager with radical ideas, so you will grow wiser in a few years. For now, however, I already know how your reaction is going to be: just like your former posts, that is, arrogant and patronizing. How I know that? It is exactly the way the most prominent right-wing extremist in my country reacts to all criticism.

Big Crunch: you are absolutely right with your language scheme. However, you made one mistake earlier on; you confused 'German' and 'germanic.' English hasn't got any German words as far as I know. It has Germanic words, of course, since it is a Germanic language. I only mentioned the French, English and German words to show how much English was influenced by the Normans. Because I speak all the three languages and also a little Latin (although Dutch is of course my first language), I know really numerous English words are from French origin. And about the Kaiser: the fact that Kaiser comes from the Latin Caesar doesn't mean it isn't a German word.

Sun Zi 36:

Actually, Napoleon by his conquests have exported many of the ideals of freedom, etc to Germany and Italy. That's why his campaigns were most successful there. He ended the revolution but didn't end its ideals (eg the Napoleonic Code). His conquests were very important in generating forces of unification in Italy and Germany in the mid 19th century

Napoleon didn't export the ideals of the revolution. As a Dutchman I know Napoleon ended the ideals of the Revolution. After he became emperor he closed independent liberal newspapers, which supported the three ideals of the revolution - Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood. He turned my country, till then a republic, into a kingdom, with his brother Louis-Napoleon as new king. In his own France he became a dictator. The ideals of the Enlightenment were already present among intellectuals everywhere in western Europe, long before the revolution and long before Napoleon conquered Germany. So he hasn't brought these ideals to Europe, in the contrary, he tried to stop them.

Actually Germany did have a colonial empire only much smaller.

I know very well Germany has had colonies, but that doesn't make it a colonial empire. With colonial empires I mean European countries who have large possessions in other continents. England had whole India, the American east-coast, and large parts of Africa. France had whole Indochina, Louisiana, parts of Canada and also large parts of Africa. Other colonial empires were the Netherlands in Indonesia, the Portuguese in Brazil and Indonesia (before the Dutch), and of course the Spanish in South-America. The German colonial possessions were too small to make Germany a colonial empire.

If u talk about wars, i think u could find England and France fought much more wars against each other than against Germany or Prussia.

Throughout its history France has fought against various little German countries. In total, there were many more French-German wars as French-English. Concerning only Prussia, the French and the Prussians have fought against each other in I think six or seven wars.

[Arent]

Oriel94:

Comparing Australia/Usa and European countries:
Communism and nationalism came up in industrial age (no - even earlier!) - at the end of the imperialistic era the european countries stood armed to the teeth - WW1 and WW2 followed. Usa and australia are young nations, people had to get there and settle and develop - this took a long time (WW1 is perhaps a good point to draw the line)
If I take 1 million people now and found a new state in antarctica - sure I have never fought a war, sure there has never been a totalitarian regime. The dangerous thing is that you *want* to believe everything is white in australia and black in the rest of the world.

Left wing/Liberalism:
I don't particulary love "lefties", too - but they have their opinions and you have to respect this. This is actually the idea of liberalism, the liberalism in australia you seem so fond of: We do not know for sure what the right/best thing is thus we allow everyone as much freedom as possible. You are not a good example of a liberalist.

EU:
...is not set in stones. So I wonder how much you know about its constitution. You perhaps don't even know who "fischer" is, not speaking about his suggestions.
There are many *serious* problems and I love to discuss them but you didn't waste a thought about them. You basically write "EU is evil" - you can't say why but it fits into your simple world view. Australia is for sure a nice country, but people there have no inborn "instinctive rejection of extremism"
even if you want to belive this.

Arent

[D4everman]

I thought this crap was argued about months ago.

Aw, shoot. Well, look at it this way Fresno...you wouldn't be playing Civ3 if an AMERICAN country didn't make it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Fresno
Oriel99: Your last post made me clear were you stand politically. You seem to be a right-wing conservative with nasty nationalist ideas. Your view on European history is highly colored by these ideas. The way you describe the inhabitants of this "Anglosphere" compared with other Europeans sounds very much alike the übermensch-untermensch-thesis (not the way Nietzsche thought about it, more the way it was interpreted by the Germans in the 1930's).

Now this is just uneccessary. Oriel brought up some good points that you can't seem to counter, so you decide to call him a Nazi. Unbelievable.

Why don't you try actually refuting Oriel's comments instead of just resorting to name-calling. Using the specter of Nazi horror to put down those who disagree with you is not only stupid, it's also offensive to those who suffered under the Nazis.

[oriel94]

Fresno/Arent

Ummm ... where to begin?

1. Perhaps you should just read my post again, but a bit more slowly.

2. Europe's political centre of gravity is markedly to the left of the Anglosphere’s. This is actually one of the things which makes Europe culturally and civilizationally different from it. To many Europeans, Reagan and Thatcher were political extremists, whereas they were well within the Anglosphere's conservative tradition. Even Tony Blair's Labour government and the US Democrats are further to the right than just about all of continental Europe's Christian Democratic or conservative parties. Again, this just serves to emphasise the differences which the English Channel symbolises (the Atlantic ocean is, in cultural terms, much narrower than the English Channel). Indeed, it is this more leftward orientation in Europe which largely explains the relative success of totalitarianism in Europe, and its complete absence anywhere in the Anglosphere (see points 3 and 4).

3. I have actively campaigned against Mrs Hanson's party in Australia. Although I don't like her policies, I think it's rather insulting to the victims of the countless European totalitarians and genuine political extemists to compare her in any way to Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Horvath, the Greek colonels, Salazar, Honecker, Ceacescu, Tito, Quisling, Petain, Zhivkov, Metaxis, etc, etc, etc. It's also a bit hysterical to do so. It’s even a little amusing that I should be so compared.

4. The United States is an older country than many modern European states. So is the UK. The Americans also inherited many centuries of English history. American, Canadian and Australian histories all begin with the Roman invasion of Britain. The settlers didn’t arrive as blank sheets of paper. The relative ages of the civilizations is not the reason why the continental/s have appeared more prone to the temptations of totalitarianism and political extremism. And even if I am wrong, in making such an argument you seek merely to rationalise the difference, and in so doing acknowledge it.

5. I don’t really think I was patronizing to you. I apologise if I was. I merely tried to point out a few fairly obvious differences between the civilizations of continental Europe and the Anglosphere. Surely you don’t deny there are differences. In an earlier post, I already indicated that some of the differences are favourable to the continentals. There’s really no need to be so thin-skinned.

6. I've actually written two books about the EU. One of them was published in the Netherlands (I mention this only because there is a suggestion that I might be a naiive teenager in my skepticism about the European Union; gee, talk about ‘patronizing’. Of course, the views I expressed in my earlier posts must stand or fall on their own merits). A federal Europe won't be democratic and a democratic Europe won't be federal.

[Arent]

Oriel94:

1)4)You got my point.
Point 3 and 5 don't apply to my posts, I don't even know Mrs. Hanson.

2)I already said you will find more differences between any single european country (just consider russia, france and sweden). And I already said that your ideas perhaps apply in 50 or 100 years.
You simply can't draw a line.

I would be careful with your judgements.
"the political center of gravity...". You can't possibly mean Germany and/or France!?

6)Me I'm studying international physics in Leipzig. Am I now more intelligent than you? You writing a political book? No, two?? Everyone please read his previous posts (page 7)

Arent

[oriel94]

Arent

Nice to see you so quick off the mark.

Yes, I do include France and Germany. The British Labour Party and the US Democrats are quite obviously further to the right than the German Christian Democrats or the Gaullists. This confirms, together with much else, the major cultural/civilizational gap between the Anglosphere and the European continent.

If you have a crystal ball, you are certainly welcome to tell us all about what happens in 50-100 years from now.

I mentioned my work on the EU only to rebut a very limited point which I spelled out in point 6 of my last post. Arent, I'm sure you're really very intelligent, and I'm prepared to accept that my meagre works might be total baloney. It might also be that I'm totally wrong about everything. It's just that I'm *not* a naiive teenager who is likely to grow out of some anti-EU phase, that's all. Nothing more.

The EU is a perfect vehicle for world-power status if your democratic traditions are comparatively shallow. Different strokes for different folks. But the Brits will never be happy occupying a room in that house; sooner or later they will either leave or bring down the house. President Bush's National Security Advisor, before the 2000 US election, publicly floated the idea of the UK leaving the EU and entering into some arrangement with NAFTA. What an interesting idea.

[Fresno]

Drake Tungsten:

Now this is just uneccessary. Oriel brought up some good points that you can't seem to counter, so you decide to call him a Nazi. Unbelievable.

Why don't you try actually refuting Oriel's comments instead of just resorting to name-calling. Using the specter of Nazi horror to put down those who disagree with you is not only stupid, it's also offensive to those who suffered under the Nazis.

Next time, read my post more carefully, before getting angry. I didn't say or even imply Oriel would cause a holocaust such as the Germans did. There is still a difference between thinking you are of a superior race (übermensch-untermensch) and killing people. Some of Oriel's remarks are racist, but that doesn't make him a Nazi.
About offending the victims: I am member of a Jewish family myself, so I know very well, probably better as you, what suffering was caused in WW2. Knowing this, I would NEVER use the holocaust in the way you mentioned.

About Oriel just bringing an opinion; I am really quite liberal towards other opinions, but when someone starts with this kind of offending generalization, I think everyone just HAS to let him know what he is doing.

Oriel94: All I was saying was, that you seem to think we Europeans are a group of peoples who keep choosing fascist and communist dictators and keep going at war with each other. You even said it was inborn for Anglosphere-people that they haven't got this tendency. I can't help seeing this as racism. How can you be so arrogant to think you can just disqualify a whole continent as being politically backward? THAT is what I call patronizing. And about your book: I am sorry to see you aren't a radical teenager, but a radical adult. However, writing a book about the EU doesn't mean your ideas are better.

Arent:

Originally posted by Arent
Left wing/Liberalism:
I don't particulary love "lefties", too - but they have their opinions and you have to respect this. This is actually the idea of liberalism, the liberalism in australia you seem so fond of: We do not know for sure what the right/best thing is thus we allow everyone as much freedom as possible. You are not a good example of a liberalist.

I agree with you, Arent. But how do you think about leftist liberals?

[KaiserIsak]

Does of you that think USA then Poland dont know your history lesson.
They might be, but are´nt yet.
The Poland-Lithunian commonwealth was a great country who have shaped the form of eustern europe. And since both the world wars have started there, i think they´ve had great influence.

[Sun Zi 36]

Alright, I m deciding that i m not going to participate in the discussion about EU or continental Europe vs "Anglosphere" only bcos it is really going off topic and not really informative. I only went into it b4 to discuss the validity of dividing the "Anglosphere" as a civilisation. I still believe that:

"Anglosphere" is valid if u take a finer division...the reason why i think Anglosphere should be a separate civ is that u can define its culture with not a very narrow division [of world cultures] yet Anglosphere is very important in influencing world history."

But no-one has responded to me on this.

MacTBone:

"I think the problem we're having is that right now we don't classify divisions with civilization, we use the term country... From now on I will use the word civ instead of country because it will help you understand.

OMG. I think YOU are the only one having the problem here. YOU were the only one to have used the word "country". You even forgot that i criticised you about this a few days ago.

"The American civ is the most widely diverse civ ever, in fact it's diversity is the REASON it can be considered a civ. Consider that the American civ has incorporated the ideas and languages of multiple civs, added a few unique elements then called it their own...."

Seems to me that, all u changed is replaced the word "country" with "civ". U still failed to appreciate the difference between the MEANING of each word. Your confusion is shown by the fact that u have conrtradicted yourself. If aspects of culture ("ideas and languages" as u said) makeup and define a civ, how can a distinct civ be made up of diverse or multiple types of cultures? Wouldn't diverse and different cultures mean there exist diverse and different civs? As i said b4 (in case u haven't read):

"if u use culture to define civs, u can narrow down to quite a lot of civs. And even then, USA as a whole can't qualify as a civ bcos there are too many different cultures within it. You'll probably single out the minority cultures within the USA b4 u can go even further to separate the majority USA from "Anglosphere"."

D4everman:

"I thought this crap was argued about months ago.

Aw, shoot. Well, look at it this way Fresno...you wouldn't be playing Civ3 if an AMERICAN country didn't make it."

Again, one of those posts that comes up once in a while. Whether an American country made it has got nothing to do with whether America SHOULD be included as a civ. We are talking about civilisations, not nations.

[mactbone]

Well, considering I never used the word culture in there I doubt I contradicted myself. I said "languages and ideas". Languages and ideas does not a culture make.

You pointedly disregarded everything you could not explain away and expect me to infer that language + idea = culture. I'll put it this way, if I take flour, eggs, and bread and combine them, do I get bread? No, I get something else. The American culture is significantly different than that of Britain, Canada, or any other English speaking culture.