Civilization: cultures or nations?

[siredgar]

I think the U.S. has long been effectively out of the British cultural sphere, unlike Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

This is because it:

1. Is not in the Commonwealth.
2. Declared independence over 200 years ago.
3. Has a greater sense of separation from Britain.
4. More culturally diverse

and finally,

5. Has greater power and influence.

In fact, the U.S. pretty much has Britain in its pocket, especially in terms of foreign policy.

Canada is quite diverse ethnically, especially in Toronto, but I don't believe it is quite like the U.S. in that way. Also, it's still a member of the Commonwealth, retains close ties to Britain (only gaining independence in the last century), considers the British monarch its Head of State, and Britain (and even the U.S.) still exerts a lot of influence on it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by siredgar
I think the U.S. has long been effectively out of the British cultural sphere, unlike Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

This is because it:

1. Is not in the Commonwealth.
2. Declared independence over 200 years ago.
3. Has a greater sense of separation from Britain.
4. More culturally diverse

and finally,

5. Has greater power and influence.

In fact, the U.S. pretty much has Britain in its pocket, especially in terms of foreign policy.

Canada is quite diverse ethnically, especially in Toronto, but I don't believe it is quite like the U.S. in that way. Also, it's still a member of the Commonwealth, retains close ties to Britain (only gaining independence in the last century), considers the British monarch its Head of State, and Britain (and even the U.S.) still exerts a lot of influence on it.

Sorry, but you're wrong about Canada. our ties to the US are much closer than they are to Britain. There has been very little British influence on our society since the second world in fact, and less as time goes by. As for the Queen being our head of state, that role is purely symbolic, nothing more. No Canadian feels that we are ruled by the Queen, we all see our prime minister as ourr true head of state. In fact there's a growing sense that we should take the final step and become a republic, just as the Australians are contemplating. The only reason we don't have a public discussion on the issue is that we don't feel it's important enough. We have enough problems to deal with at the moment.

[Oligarf]

Quasar1011
I voted for nation. I went to Washington DC in the summer of 2000, and saw many buildings that could have passed for ancient Greek or Roman! So there is no doubt that a nation may be a conglomerate of many cultures. The British nation has Welsh, Irish, Scottish, and English to start; German kings from Hannover sat upon the British throne at times; French words abound in the English language; the Danes and Vikings left their mark in eastern England; and the Indians and Chinese now own many restaurants in Britain. My point is this: culture does not respect boundaries nearly as well as does nationhood. Just because the new Afghan government, or the old Liberian government, uses Yankee dollars as their official legal tender, does not make them culturally American. The people are influenced by foreign culture, without becoming nationals of the other country unless they choose to emigrate. A nation's culture can extend far beyond its borders, so I think nation is a better model for what comprises a civ.

Oligarf
This works for the US, as it is a federation, in this view Europe would qualify for one civilization. I doubt that.

Fresno
Oligarf: I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain it, please?

So, what I tried to say is that in the view of Quasar1011 the US as an entity looks more like the EU as an entity than compared with a single state in the EU. In his view I think that Europe is more like a Civ than the different nations. What means that saying nations are civs is in my view incorrect.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Willem


Sorry, but you're wrong about Canada. our ties to the US are much closer than they are to Britain. There has been very little British influence on our society since the second world in fact, and less as time goes by. As for the Queen being our head of state, that role is purely symbolic, nothing more. No Canadian feels that we are ruled by the Queen, we all see our prime minister as ourr true head of state. In fact there's a growing sense that we should take the final step and become a republic, just as the Australians are contemplating. The only reason we don't have a public discussion on the issue is that we don't feel it's important enough. We have enough problems to deal with at the moment.

Yes, I agree with you, but until the end of World War II, Canada was still in the British sphere of influence. It's only been the past 50 years that it's more influenced by the U.S. That's not a "long" time as I stated was important. The U.S. has been out of the British sphere of influence for at least 200 years (a "long" time for us). If 50 years is a long time for Canadians, then let it be so.

[Fresno]

Oligarf: when we see eachother again I'll ask you to explain it in Dutch.

[Sun Zi 36]

it is culture without any doubt. here are some defintitions of civilisation from various dictionaries (Cambrige, dictionary.com, etc)

civ¡Pi¡Pli¡Pza¡Ption (sv-l-zshn)
n.
1.An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2.The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3.The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
4.Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.
5.Human society with its highly developed social organizations
6.The culture and way of life of a society or country at a particular period in time"

None of the defintions referred to anything about nations except 2 and 6 but all of the definitions referred to something about culture. But even in 2 and 6, "nation" or "country" is not the determinative condition for a civilisation. The definitions suggest that a civilisation can be either of a nation/country OR region/society OR a time period conditional upon "The culture and way of life" or "The type of culture and society". By the defintions, "The type of culture and society" or "The culture and way of life" is the first and foremost characteristic of a civilisation while the region or nation/country or time period which it is developed by only serves to classify it.

[Fresno]

I agree with that. But if civ should be about cultures, shouldn't there be some more, non-western civs? I mean like the Khmer, the Indonesians, ...

[Sun Zi 36]

i agree there should be more non-western civilisations in reality.

however, one should understand that there are probably much more civilisations than the 16 offered by civ3. therefore, there must be a criteria to choose which of the many civilisations should be included in civ3. influence on world history is a good criteria, and that's why i think it is right to some extent to have more western civilisations. of course, i strongly disagree with some civilisations that are not included in civ3 such as the arabs and the spanish.

[Fresno]

Of course we should try to find a good balance.

For example the Zulus are a non-western civiliztion, but they weren't important enough to justify their inclusion.

On the other hand, if you compare the number of western civs with the number of non-western civs...

I think we should try to find non-western, important civs to add. Example: the empire Mali would be a good and influentive civ.

[nationalist]

I voted for Nation, because there really is no distinction between a nation and a culture. A nation is simply a group of people who share the same culture. The real difference is between a nation and a state. Take Austria for example. Its people are of the German nation, but it is the state of Austria. If Civilizations are represented as nations or cultures, then Vienna is a German city. If the Civilizations are represented by state, then Vienna is an Austrian city. There is a huge difference between the meanings of "state" and "nation", even though many people use the words interchangably.

[Fresno]

Apparently, normal people understand what I mean. So what's the problem?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Fresno
Apparently, normal people understand what I mean. So what's the problem?

Oh, sorry about that Fresno. Next time I won't point out the fact that you don't know what the terms you use in your own poll mean. My mistake.

[Dauphin]

The real difference is between a nation and a state. Take Austria for example. Its people are of the German nation, but it is the state of Austria

I would disagree with that.

To me, a nation is a reference to the people of an "entity", the state is the political body of that samew "entity" (e.g An enemy of the state is an enemy of the political regime, and an enemy of the nation is the enemy of the people). Therefore Austrians are not of the German nation or state.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
To me, a nation is a reference to the people of an "entity", the state is the political body of that samew "entity" (e.g An enemy of the state is an enemy of the political regime, and an enemy of the nation is the enemy of the people). Therefore Austrians are not of the German nation or state.

That is not entirely true. The situation that you are describing is the "nation-state", a situation where the state is made up basically a single nation. Japan is a good example of a nation-state. The U.S.S.R. was made up of many separate nationalities, nationalities that formed their own states after the war. The U.S.S.R. was a unquestionably a state, but not a nation. Another example would be Yugoslavia. Same situation as the U.S.S.R. People wouldn't call themselves Yugoslavians, they would call themselves Serbians or Croatians or etc. Yugoslavia was the state, but Serbias and Croatians represented different nations.
The term nation connotates a group of people who share a common past, beliefs, language, often the same ethnicity and religion, etc. These traits are synonomous with a group's culture (and I think that is what culture in Civ 3 represents) The state is a legal entity that governs a particulaar territory, but it doesn't necessarily represent a nation ( as was demonstrated in Yugoslavia, U.S.S.R., many others).

Austrians are German by nationality. They share the same language and heritage. I would compare Austria to Bavaria. Common heritage, common language, common religion, but Bavaria is in Germany while Austria is independant. Austria has wanted to join with the German state a few times in the past, and actually has at one point (see WW2 and the Anschluss). While you're examining German history, look at the Sudentenland. Populated by Germans, but ruled by a Czech state. The Germans wanted to join the German state. If a nation was merely the embodiment of a group of people who live in the same territory, and the state was the legal of those people, then the Germans would have been perfectly happy living in a Czech state, and would have referd to themselves as Czechs not as Germans.

[Sun Zi 36]

Originally posted by nationalist
I voted for Nation, because there really is no distinction between a nation and a culture. A nation is simply a group of people who share the same culture.

i dont prefer your understanding of the meaning of "nation", although i dont think it is "invalid". here are some of the (notable) definitions of "nation":

from dictionary.com
na¡Ption
n.
1.a) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b) The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: ¡§Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity¡¨ (Robert Conquest).
4.a) A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
b) The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

It appears that your understanding of the meaning of the word "nation" is point 3 while most of us share the thought that it is points 1 or 2. points 1 and 2 had nothing to do with culture. it is logical that the poll maker by giving us these 2 options, he meant "nation" in the light of points 1 and 2 above.

[Fresno]

Sun Zi 36, now I'm really convinced you were right on the other thread about using the dictionary.

Of course there are different meanings for 'nation,' but what if I had said 'state'? Then people might have complained that the state of California isn't the same as a state like France or Canada.

Giving an explanation for every option in the topic would be useless either, because, as I said, everyone understood what I meant. So let's discuss the question this thread is about, instead of wether the opions were valid or not. They were.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

It appears that your understanding of the meaning of the word "nation" is point 3 while most of us share the thought that it is points 1 or 2. points 1 and 2 had nothing to do with culture. it is logical that the poll maker by giving us these 2 options, he meant "nation" in the light of points 1 and 2 above.

I can live with those definitions. I'm just nitpicky about the differences because I'm a government major. I have about athirty different government texts that deal with nationalism and the definition of what a nation is and they are all in tune with definition 3 of the dictionary definition. It is the historical definition of a nation, and what I assumed that nation and culture in Civ 3 was based on. Definitions 1 and 2 are valid modern definitions of a nation, but they are less technical and precise definitions. If you are using those definitions then the poll is viable and, in that case, I choose "culture" as how the civs should be represented.

[Wee Lad]

Maybe someone already mentioned this (too lazy to read all replies): the nation-state did not appear until the peace of Westphalia (unsure about spelling) in 1456. Hence calling it a nation would be historically incorrect as the Romans and other were not nations as we understand it.

[Gareth]

Likely this was already said. Instead of >civilizations/nations< the term >peoples< might be more accurate. But this is the game's name so firaxis shall be forgiven

Example: Even if you play on Earth-map/ use civ3breed, the countries aren't always at the right positions. If Zululand conquers Germany, the rest of the German cities at the end of Sibiria will be named Germany.

And they all have their own cultures, this is unique to homo sapiens. Real awareness of an own modern nation appeared in the most heads only 200 years ago. This is not the criterion to rate the civs.

Also the civs in the game would have had different cultures at once. The Vikings in Russia were different guys than the ones in Sicilia.

Ancient Greece was a sum of independent cities with similar culture. I think they were the first who called the tribes in the north barbarians. But they were seperated into Celtic and Slavic tribes, even if the didn't knew it themselves. Civs like Zulu, Iroquois that were tribal didn't have had cities. But they built temples, did trade, voted kings, conquered others. learned to ride and to use firearms etc. which makes them to fit into the game-principle of civilization.

Its fun to play native americans vs. america/europeans or confederates vs. federateson a usa map. Its fun to meet gandhi with war elephants or to see Bismarck angry in a fur. That counts. On the other side I'm glad that civ is a game with a good amount of realism. There are enough disney-like games.

[Fresno]

I still think every term would be confusing. Read my previous post for the reason why.

So let's continue the discussion and leave the naming-part.

Gareth: so you voted culture?

[Big Fish]

If a nation lasts more than 25 years it develops its own distinct culture. So a nation causes culture

[Sun Zi 36]

Originally posted by Big Fish
If a nation lasts more than 25 years it develops its own distinct culture. So a nation causes culture

250 years maybe, but 25 years? Ever heard of multiculturalism? if a "nation" (please make sure you mean definitions 1 and 2 not 3, which I set out above, otherwise you are not making much sense because definition 3 is culture) can "cause culture" how did great empires last for over 25 years? did Europe not disintegrate into so many smaller nations after being ruled for a long time under single nations (Austria-Hungary, USSR, Yugoslavia) because of diverse cultures within those single nations? Dont tell me those empires or single European nations in the past were not actually "nations" in the sense we are talking about here, they satisfy every element in defintions 1 and 2 set out above.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Big Fish
If a nation lasts more than 25 years it develops its own distinct culture. So a nation causes culture

Uhh...on what evidence do you base this rather intriguing equation?

Provencal culture stretched (geographically) from North Italy through the south of France and into Catalan Spain, and yet there was no 'Provencal' nation as such; similarly 'English' culture existed in the American colonies simultaneously with 'English' culture in Great Britain, and yet a distinctive 'American' culture took longer than 25 years to develop.

Scots culture in the relatively homogenous nation of Scotland altered over the years, but even in Mediaeval Scotland, the difference between Lallans/Lowland Scots culture and the Scots Gaelic culture of the Western Isles and Highlands was notable.
This however does not imply that they formed different nations, or that the cultures stemmed from different nations.

[Corvi #6]

If you compare a map of Europe with a map langauges spoken in Europe, you will see a clear tendency for language blocks to form their own states. So I would say that culture causes nations and not the other way round.

[Oligarf]

I think there must be a good reason why we use the word civilization and not culture or nation for the thing we are talking about. They are not the same.

[XarXo]

The problem isn't about cultures or nations (but I preffer cultures), the problem is with the moment at the game starts (4000 BC).

In the early middle ages Lituania was an enormous country that sized its actual territory plus northern Belarus and Polska, but now... Who thinks in Lituania for include it in the game?

The better option is a game system like Empire Earth, this is, you choose the start period. The other part for the idea is that depending from it you can select some countries, these countries can change their names when an era finishes, so if we start with (for example) teutons, we can finish in English (yes, it isn't very accurate, but well...), germans, dutch or whatever you want. Also mixed ethnics can appear in the two or more branches where it appeared. Finally, the main idea is a game with not a great history accurance, is history possibilities the interesting thing .

In this chase, we can make:


4000 BC -> 500 BC -> 1000 BC -> 1750 BC

Teutons -> AngloSaxons -> English -> Americans

OR

Iberians -> Lusitains -> Romans -> Portuguese

OR (ehem)

Iberians -> Romans -> Crown of Aragon -> Catalans

OR (better)

*PUT YOUR COUNTRY HERE* -> Occidentals

---------------------------------

Visit now, Yahoo! en català at: http://ct.yahoo.com !!

[Tingkai]

The problem with saying a civilization is defined by culture is that most modern civs are composed of a variety of cultures.

The British civilization has its English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh influences. Or to go even further back, it was influenced by Germanic and French culture .

The culture of India is influenced by Islamic, Hindu, Buddist, Sikh and other religions.

The Germans are influenced by Catholic and Protestant views.

The Americans have a vast array of cultures influencing the mainstream, sometimes unified, sometimes distinct.

So the answer to the question may well be that the question itself is incorrect.

[Sun Zi 36]

Tingkai:
I agree with u that most, if not all civilisations are subject to cultural influence of different kinds. But that is I think what makes them a civilisation distinct from others. All civilisations must be influenced by different cultures to different degrees for them to be distinguished from other civilisations. That's why cultures define civilisations. But at no point do u take into account national boundaries in defining civilsations. That is why i think civilsations are defintely cultures, not nations.

[Oligarf]

I think that there are several ways for a civilization to become one, I think that civilizations can emerge from nations or cultures, but I also think that nations and cultures can emerge from civilizations. Therefore I find it hard to say what it actually is. As I already mentioned, it is probably something different.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Fresno
For example the Zulus are a non-western civiliztion, but they weren't important enough to justify their inclusion.

Why not? This is just a game, not some ultimate award for a civilization. Yay, the Greeks were included, that means they finally made it.