America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[Mister Hand]

The addition of "Culture" to the game alone justifies the inclusion of America. At no time in history has the influence of a culture been so widespread (for good or bad).

Also, it helps sell copies in the Southern U.S.A. to those who have always had a hankerin' to kick Lincoln's ass!

[oriel94]

My list of 'civilizations' for Civ4 (some of the names - marked '?' - are in draft form but they represent the essential idea). Some are modern, some are ancient, and some are both. For easily offended or thin-skinned types, the order is entirely random and signifies nothing:

West Europeans (French, Germans, Spaniards, Italians etc) ?
East Europeans (mostly the modern slavic countries) ?
Anglosphere (Americans, British, Canadians, Australians, NZers) ?
Sub-Saharan Africans ?
Latin Americans ?
Arabs
Chinese
Indians
Japanese
Romans
Greeks
Persians
Babylonians/Sumerians ?
Hebrews/Jews/Israelites ?
Egyptians
Meso-Americans (Aztecs, Incas etc) ?

[Sun Zi 36]

"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."

This paragraph is just so confusing and ambiguious that I need clarification . Is the egg/flour/bread example supposed to support the first sentence or the last sentence?
If the first, u have just nullified the link between the last sentence and the rest of your posts. The last sentence just stands alone empty with no backing.
If the example is supposed to support America's distinct culture, which i think is more likely, then it still seems confusing. What specific aspects of culture (since its not ideas or language) are u talking about that is different in America?

Some of the specific aspects of culture that are the SAME for "Anglosphere" is already argued by Oriel94 above (3days ago or something) so I won't go into it again.

The argument that the mixture of culture in America is a different "culture" (i m already noting self-contrdiction as i type this) is flawed. Simply put, if it is a mixture of cultures, then it is not one culture. If it is one distinct culture, then it cannot at the same time be multiple different cultures. Yes, I admit that different cultures can transform into one culture over time. But America still consists of multicultures, not one culture. it is just too tempting to fall into the cage of confining culture in terms of political borders or geographical terms.

"The addition of "Culture" to the game alone justifies the inclusion of America. At no time in history has the influence of a culture been so widespread (for good or bad).

Also, it helps sell copies in the Southern U.S.A. to those who have always had a hankerin' to kick Lincoln's ass!"

The first paragraph still fails to appreciate the difference between country and culture. America is a mulitple of cultures, as i said b4.
The second paragraph fails also to appreciate the topic of the discussion. Selling the game has got nothing to do with culture and thus whether America SHOULD be a civ.

oriel94: I mostly agree with ur list from an entirely cultural uniqueness point of view. But as some others pointed out, differences between cultures within continental Europe may be more than contenental Europe vs Anglosphere. I dont think Chinese and Japanese are really that different either, compared to maybe Spanish and German.

Further, even if ur list is right accoording to cultural uniqueness, i think cultural influence also needs to be assessed (some even thinks that this is the only thing to assess to justify America in the game). Since the difference within "Western Europeans" is not small (while difference within Anlgosphere is) and individual Western European cultures did have large influence, some of them should be included separately. Maybe combine Latin American/Meso American since they did not have large influence and Latin American is not really VERY unique culturally.

[oriel94]

We are conducting this rather fascinating discussion in a particular context. At least I think so. The context, or so it seems to me, is whether the Americans can be considered a civilization for the limited purposes of Civ3. In a sense, every country, every region, and perhaps every family has its own unique culture in some sense. But not every country/region/family can have its own civilization.

According to Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntingdon's influential 1996 book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" there are only 9 true 'civilizations' in the modern world (he makes no argument about ancient or extinct civilizations). Wanna know what they are?

Western
Latin American
African
Islamic
Sinic [Chinese and Chinese derived/influenced]
Hindu
Orthodox [ie Eastern Orthodox Christianity]
Buddhist
Japanese

On Huntingdon's account, the only country which is co-extensive with a single culture is Japan. The US is in the 'Western' civilization, not surprisingly.

If the context of our discussion is who should be a civ for the purposes of a computer game where the number of players is necessarily limited (i.e. not the complexities of the real world) then Huntingdon is perhaps not a bad place to start. We might do a very little refining, renaming and adding a few ancient/extinct civilizations to bring us up to the maximum limit *for the game* - we're talking about a game here folks, or at least that's what I thought the forum is for.

As you know, I would make the Anglosphere a separate civ for the game. That's not to deny strong primary links between the Anglosphere and Huntingdon's Western civilization, or strong secondary links between the Anglosphere and Huntingdon's Orthodox and Latin American civilizations. I won't reiterate those reasons, which I have set out at [too much] length earlier in the thread.

For the purposes of the game, *as currently structured*, I think having the Americans in is fun even if it's not strictly accurate to regard them as a Civilization in every sense and for all purposes. I bought Civ3 to have fun.

Maybe the civs in Civ4 (oh happy day!) will be structured differently.

All of this is, of course, IMHO.

[Drone #9]

Originally posted by HalfLotus
Since when is America not a civlized nation?

Ever since Hollywood and Vegas were founded

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Fresno
Oriel99: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).

If your intention in making this statement was not to imply that Oriel was a Nazi, then I apologize for my comments. However, I don't think I was mistaken in my judgement. I don't know how the "ubermensch-untermensch thesis" or "Germans in the 1930's" could refer to anything other than Nazism. Implying a person is a Nazi is offensive, especially when the person did nothing to make them appear like a Nazi. Nothing Oriel has said has even been in the same galaxy as Nazi ideology, so such an accusation is unexcusable.

[oriel94]

For what it's worth (although it's a bit off-topic), I would describe myself as a conservative in the 'Anglosphere' sense. That means I support small government, low taxes and low levels of state regulation/interference in the lives of the citizens. What makes me different from a libertarian is that I believe the state should be strong in a few important areas - defending the country's borders, maintaining law and order, upholding the rule of law and supporting a clear system of public morality. All this is directed to one important end: creating and preserving an environment in which the people can be free and self-governing without the state acting as either nanny or kindergarten cop. I have long gotten used to some lefties confusing this with nazism. C'est la vie.

I will not enter into any correspondence on this somewhat off-topic point.

[Drake Tungsten]

We seem to have a lot in common, Oriel, at least in our political views. That's why I took special offense to the implication that you are a Nazi; if you are considered one then I must be too. In America I'm a moderate conservative, but in Europe I'm a fascist! Go figure.

[Sun Zi 36]

I also have that book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order". There are a few criticisms I want to make of his divisions. Firstly I think the difference between the South-East Asians and Middle East people justifies them being in different civilisations even if they share the same religion. His Buddhist civlisation seem to contain peoples who share little in common except Buddhism (and even that is weakly shared as there are many different branches). And, as I said, I don't really think there is too much difference between the Chinese and the Japanese compared to maybe the Spanish and the Germans. I think he may have concentrated too much on religion and ideals in his divisions. Of course, our purpose of division is entirely different from his so it is no suprise we may be coming from different angles.

I also think having Anglosphere as a civ is a good idea. But I think it is neither fun nor correct to have America as a civ. Anglosphere and America can't exist together as civs. I think it's more fun to have America and all its cultural Allies speak with one voice as a single civ than just America.

My political views would probably be classifies as "left" in your (conservative) terms. I think people should have a social conscience and thus governments should be there to uphold social justice and quity. Market forces does not do well in these areas. I don't think this means "the state acting as either nanny or kindergarten cop", just that people should not be handicapped in their lives bcos of their social economic backgrounds or prejudices on things that do not relate to their personal quality.

[oriel94]

Sun Zi

I agree that you can't have both the Anglosphere and the Americans as a civ - it must be one or the other. I don't endorse everything that Huntindon says, but it's a good starting point for a game called 'Civilization'. I will observe my self-denying ordinance about discussing your politics, which are probably of the reasonable sort which conservatives need to have around in order to keep them on their mettle.

[Arent]

I think huntington made Japanese a distinct culture cause they actually have their own religion (shinto).

drake: Not everyone in Europe. There are just a lot of people wary of extremism cause of WW2, sovjet union et cetera. They don't want this to happen again and thus can sometimes be a little overbearing/lecturing.

Arent

[Fresno]

Oriel, Drake Tzuntzen & Arent: I've had it with people putting words into my mouth. This was the last time I participated in the Nazism-discussion.

The only thing I would like to add is this: I am not someone who calls every conservative a Nazi, or every socialist/social-democrat a communist. I am a leftist liberal and I respect everyone, wether he/she agrees with me or not.

[Arent]

Fresno:

You were not overbearing, you had your point calling oriel such. Some of his statements were not that qualified.

I can understand Drake cause some people really exaggerate their point and I had some nice (one way) conversations so far (not only with Europeans that is, but also with some Usaians). That's why I said not everyone in Europe takes it that far.

Arent

[Arent]

double

[Drake Tungsten]

Fresno: I don't mean any offense. Please, just explain what you meant by saying Oriel's views were similar to the ubermensch-untermensch thesis held by Germans in the 1930's. That comment seemed to me like a reference to the Nazis, but if you didn't intend for it to be taken that way then please tell me what you did mean. I don't want to make you out to be something you're not.

Arent: I fully understand that not all Europeans are overbearing and can even sympathize with those who are. The events of the 20th century are more than enough to make Europeans wary of extremism. I just don't want fear of extremism to be used to stifle intellectual discussion.

Sun Zi: I think you'd be suprised at the amount of difference between Japanese and Chinese culture. It's really a fascinating subject, which is probably why I spent most of my college career examining it.

[Sun Zi 36]

Well, i wouldn't have as much knowledge as u. Yes, i agree there are differences. However, the amount of difference depends on whether you view it relatively or empirically. If u compare Chinese and Japanese by themselves, then u can spot a lot of differences, and even more as u indulge deeper and deeper into studying them. But if u take back a step and view the difference between China/Japan comparative to other cultures, u may find they do not differ that much at all. That is perhaps the reason why our views differ. Agree?

[oriel94]

I hesitate to enter the China-Japan discussion, as I'm far from expert. I do, however, remember reading a chapter from Paul Johnson's brilliant "Modern Times" describing the background to Japan's invasion of China in the 1930s. Johnson took the view that the similarities - not the differences- between the two cultures/civilizations were the more superficial. In particular, he argued that the Japanese conception of time (linear) gave them an important edge over China with its far more fatalistic cyclical conception. (There were, of course, numerous other cultural and material factors which he discusses, but the time thing sort of sticks in my mind).

Something similar was, I think, later argued by Huntingdon.

Euro-lefties will delight in the knowledge that "Modern Times" is prescribed reading for CIA and US State Department trainees (even though Johnson is an English Monarchist! - the Anglosphere strikes again).

Yours,

One of the "Ubermensch"

[oriel94]

Hey, I've just been upgraded to Chieftain! Yippee! And all for blowing off on this thread. I must assume the promotion is due to quantity and not quality.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sun Zi: I agree with you that the perceived differences between civilizations depend greatly on your point of view. The differences between Japan and China certainly pale in comparison to differences between Europe and Asia. That said, I think the differences between Japan and China are very significant, easily as significant as the differences between various European countries. This is just my opinion though, so let's not dwell on this topic. My opinions certainly aren't gospel...

Oriel: It's funny that you should mention the CIA and the State Department. I just applied for both of their internship programs last week and am hoping to get accepted. I really want to work in the US Embassy in Japan, but if I get stuck in Washington, that will be alright as well. Maybe I should start reading "Modern Times", just in case.

[oriel94]

Drake

Good luck, bon chance and viel glueck with those applications. Read "Modern Times" now and get a head start. They might even make you ambassador to Japan when you start discussing Johnson at the interviews!

[Fresno]

Arent:

You were not overbearing, you had your point calling oriel such. Some of his statements were not that qualified.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Thank you very much for your support.

Drake Tungsten: I already explained two times what I meant. Please read my previous posts.

[Fresno]

About America: Although I still think America shouldn't be included as a separate civilization, I now think it might be a good idea to make it possible for available civs to establish colonies, which can later fight for independence, just like in Europa Universalis. In this way you could include the USA, Mexico and others, without having the problem of Americans discovering The Wheel and establishing Washington in 4000 BC. How does everybody think about this compromise?

[Sun Zi 36]

Well, i haven't played Europa Univeralis. I still think that would create problems relating to the definition of civilisations. I don't think independence of colonies into nations mean anything like they are immediately detached to the mother country culturally. National independence are things that happen below the civilisational level. It has got little to do with culture anyway.

[Oligarf]

About those colonies. In Civ II civilizations were randomly split up when the capital was taken. Something like that could also happen with colony-like cities or areas.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Oligarf
About those colonies. In Civ II civilizations were randomly split up when the capital was taken. Something like that could also happen with colony-like cities or areas.

That's what I mean.

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36 National independence are things that happen below the civilisational level. It has got little to do with culture anyway.

Why would there be schisms in Civ1 and 2 then?

[Sun Zi 36]

Well, that is just an idea created by the game makers to try to make the game more excitiing by introducing a special feature.

I dont think the split really should mean national independence, bcos civs are entities that share common culture. It is possible although highly unlikely that there's suddenly a shift in culture within a civ just bcos the capital has been captured.

[Sir Hawkeye]

I would argue that revolutions typically occur after cultures have diverged, due to lack of understanding and shared values, e.g. American Civil War.

After the capital falls, there is much less unifying force within a nation/civ, and thus the schism.

[cavebear]

I just wanted to add the America should be included in the list of civs because some of us just plain *have* to have cities we can remember the names of, and it is much easier to have the computer provide the names automatically.

And don't bother telling me I can do that myself, I just hate to mess with the programming...

[Sun Zi 36]

"I would argue that revolutions typically occur after cultures have diverged, due to lack of understanding and shared values, e.g. American Civil War.

After the capital falls, there is much less unifying force within a nation/civ, and thus the schism."

Yes i agree that this could happen, but it is very highly unlikely that the disturbance can be to the extent that the entire CIVILISATION is broken apart. To use your American Civil War example, although culture may have diverged, the disturbance was not so servere that u could say the North and the South are difference civilisations.

"I just wanted to add the America should be included in the list of civs because some of us just plain *have* to have cities we can remember the names of, and it is much easier to have the computer provide the names automatically. "

And that is a compelling reason why America should be a civ? I would think not.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by cavebear
I just wanted to add the America should be included in the list of civs because some of us just plain *have* to have cities we can remember the names of, and it is much easier to have the computer provide the names automatically.

You mean they can't remember foreign names?

And I thought Dutch education was bad...