 |
America an independent tribe?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes! God bless America! |
   |
217 |
47.28% |
| No! Only civilized nations deserve to be independent! |
   |
193 |
42.05% |
| I don't care. |
   |
49 |
10.68% |
| Total: |
459 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the official title of Heinrich the Fowler in the 900s was "King of Germany." And so he was. |
Sorry to burst your bubble, my friend, but this in no way indicative of Germany's status as a unified nation-state. Given the way royal titles worked, this is akin to me being named King of the Midwest. Yes, there is a region called the Midwest, but it is not a nation-state or a singular political entity. It's just a region. There was no concept of there being a unified German nation until 1871. That's why they call it the unification of Germany, not the reunification of Germany.
I think you don't quite grasp the Holy Roman Empire. It wasn't a political entity like the Roman Empire. It was more of a symbolic status given to a powerful king, bestowed by the church. While the HR Emperor was allowed to move freely within the [ephemeral] borders of the "empire," he did not have direct political or authoritative power over the subjects of the entire empire. The regional princes/barons/etc. still exercised executive supremacy there. Just because a German king was HRE in no way says that the HRE was thus a German nation. Otherwise, we'd have to say the German states were ruled by Spain when Charles V was HRE. Silly!
quote:
And to say the Germans weren't unified very long and should be ditched is discounting lots of other civs -- |
Which was exactly my point.
quote:
I should have expected as much from a Russian. (Godunov the phony Tsar) |
Hey! Low blow! Hehe. Acutally, I'm more German than anything else. And in terms of historical fact, Boris was very much a legitimate ruler and was a fairly benevolent monarch. He's just been sullied by the legends (which are untrue).
Cheers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Sorry to burst your bubble, my friend, but this in no way indicative of Germany's status as a unified nation-state. Given the way royal titles worked, this is akin to me being named King of the Midwest. Yes, there is a region called the Midwest, but it is not a nation-state or a singular political entity. It's just a region. There was no concept of there being a unified German nation until 1871. That's why they call it the unification of Germany, not the reunification of Germany. |
I think that the US should be included. The US has developed a distinct culture and presence in the world. While recent, American contributions to all aspects of modern life are impressive by any standard.
On the German question, I think that German culture extends beyond the borders of modern Germany. Many notable Germans, such as Frederick the Great, preceed the unification of Germany, and still others were of German Ancestry, but of Austrian citizenship, like Freud. The Holy Roman Empire is an important part of German history and should be considered part of the German civ.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Nemo
|
 |
of no one.
Apr 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
At what point do you class a democracy being implemented. The English civil war in the 17th century removed the monarchy and gave the power to elected representives in the House of Commons. Is this the birth of democracy?
The fact that who could vote was limited to land-owners is neither here nor there, when you consider that the US also maintained voting restrictions long after at its inception. |
i do not know the first nation (if any nation) tha actually had/has a pure democracy. i do know that i have read books dating back to the late 1500's regarding its theory in poli sci classes, and of course there is the philosophers of ancient greece and rome that debated republic/democratic principles. i do not consider either the US or England after its civil war to be a democracy. both are republics.
quote:
quote:
without the US and its democracy the world could hypothetically be communist now for all we know. (just a what if...not saying i believe or disbelieve it) |
Big IF.
It smells of American arrogance to believe that. Sorry.
|
Big IF...absolutly.
maybe, but if you consider some facts (which i am sure all have rebuttles) it might not be as much arrogance as you think, though. after WWII ended russia had free rein to conquer europe and an army of still 12 million. with the devistated continent, it would have been easy to incorperate a vast majority of it as a communist satilite. ok, so there goes europe.
now that hypothetcal aside, lets think of something else. vietnam/korea. i admit to not knowing much about them, so based on what i do know, is this: france was in vietnam prior to the US, they pulled out when we took over. we were able to hold off (while losing) long enough to keep communism from spreading south long enough while communism collapsed in russia. much of the korea/vietnam reasoning for entering was the "truman doctrine" which was to "uphold democracy" around the world which has come under much critisism over the years as the "world police doctrine" the truman doctrine is the what i was basing most of my thought (if i was actually thinking or not i am not quite sure  ) on before.
quote:
I won't deny the Americans were the major player in the anti-communist alliance, but even if they had lost the War of Independence, and the US territory remained British until independence (like Canada, Australia etc) I believe that Communism would still have been fended off.
|
if the US was still British, then they would have recruited troops much earlier in the war, when Germany was still strong. also, the entire war would have been fought differently by the germans...i can think of a million arguements for both ways the war could have gone if this was the case, but wether germany would have won or lost in this case...then either facism or communism would be more prevolent in the world today.
quote:
That would be intents and purposes.  |
yes, that it would be...opps
dont take this the wrong way...i just like to read what other's perspectives are in comparison to mine.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sun Zi 36
|
|
I actually find it tedious to start this discussion again. Those who does not believe that the term "America" can only refer to a specific place on earth, not a specific group of people in a society sharing common culture, will never be convinced that it is.
quote:
All I can say to this is, what greatness has America achieved, what merits has it brought unto itself to deserve to be ranked next to Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Britain and China? |
quote:
people, people...
how can u not want americans. we have given u freedom, money, and McDonalds...what would life be without coke, the internet and SID MEIER *looks for a bowing smilie, grumbles* |
These two arguments are flawed in that they imply significant influence in history is all that which matters in whether to accept a group of people in the game. (there's another thread about this). If influence is all that which matters, wat stops u from saying that New Yorkers and Californians should be civs bcos surely they each achieved more than the Zulus or Iroquois. Wat i m arguing is the lack of uniqueness of the Americans, which i will elaborate below.
quote:
You are confusing civilization with cultural hegemony. By the logic of what you just said, Rome would not qualify as a civilization because it was made up of millions of different cultures that spanned the Mediterranean. Most of those people didn't consider themselves Romans, and in fact viewed themselves as subjugates of the Empire. |
I m arguing exactly that culture defines civilsation. It seems that u do not understand the logic of my argument. Just bcos there are thousands of cultures within the Roman Empire doesn't mean the Romans or even those subjugates cannot be a civilisation. Again, culture define civilisations not political borders. Bcos most ppl in Americam, Canada, England and Australia still adhere to similar culture, they should all come under a civ of one title. Bcos the minorities in America, Canada, etc do not ahere to similar culture as the majority, they should not come under the same civ as the majority. And wat degree of similarity should be considered one culture? This is a matter of opinion that i would not elaborate. But one thing i m pretty definite: out of the 16 chosen by firaxis, the english and Americans are the two most similar in culture.
quote:
" How much do you know of America? Most people, of ANY background, who are citizens, consider themselves American!" |
U just made a big unsubstantiated point with no positive contribution to your argument watsoever. I do not know your background, so i would not question your knowledge. But i know my background, and i can tell u, for all of my relatives and most of all the ppl i know who are in the same situation as me, they do not consider themselves practising the same culture as the majority of ppl in America. It is not a matter of whether they think they r American (as in part of the nation called America), it is a matter of culture, whether they adhere to similar culture as the majority of Americans. If they do indeed adhere to the same culture then they should indeed be considered as part of the civ, but that does not affect the argument that most people in America, Canada and England should come under a civ of one title bcos of their similar culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
El hidalgo
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
America may not be old, but here are only a few reasons why this game should have the United States as a civilization:
1) Firaxis is an American company;
2) They will probably sell more copies in the US than any other country in the world;
3) Althought the US isn't old, it can count itself as one of the most influencial nations to have ever existed. |
I often hear 1) & 2), but is there any evidence that Americans prefer to play as Americans? I'm American and I rarely played the Americans -- usually Russians or Mongols. Regarding point 1), I don't think that really comes into play. Again, it gets back to the question of whether most Americans prefer to play as the Americans, and I don't know if that's case or not. Maybe that should be a poll?
Regarding the Kyoto treaty, don't forget that that was DOA; Dubya just had the cojones (or the stupidity) to state the obvious, to admit that the emperor had no clothes. The thing was rejected something like 95-0 in the Senate during the Clinton years, for crying out loud. It had no chance whatsoever, Dubya or not. Not to get political, but those are the facts.
Last edited by El hidalgo on 07-10-2001 at 13:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
U just made a big unsubstantiated point with no positive contribution to your argument watsoever. I do not know your background, so i would not question your knowledge. But i know my background, and i can tell u, for all of my relatives and most of all the ppl i know who are in the same situation as me, they do not consider themselves practising the same culture as the majority of ppl in America. It is not a matter of whether they think they r American (as in part of the nation called America), it is a matter of culture, whether they adhere to similar culture as the majority of Americans. If they do indeed adhere to the same culture then they should indeed be considered as part of the civ, but that does not affect the argument that most people in America, Canada and England should come under a civ of one title bcos of their similar culture. |
You said before:
quote:
They do not see themselves as Americans even though they live in the country. |
I see a bit of a contradiction.
And yes, minorities DO adhere to similar culture of majority of Americans. The culture of coke and rock & roll, of Microsoft and McDonalds. THAT is American culture, add to that the idea of cultural diversity that underscores it.
American culture is as distinct from English culture as English culture is distinct from French.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oligarf
|
|
The US would never be what they are now if they weren't a European colony. The history of the US is that of a former colony, you can't deny that. History wouldn't be the same the US not being a colony. But he, if you dislike the US as a player, don't allow them in a game.
No CIV will ever make it till eternity. Only the Humans as species maybe. I talked about some more realism in other threads. But with concern to this subject I would say, you don't know how long the US will 'run' this world. As others already commented, the Egyptians, Persians and so on, didn't make it. The Americans won't either.
'Build An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time', remember. Because that's the aim of the game, any civ that once lived on this planet should have it's chance. Those include the Americans.
BTW Therefor I wan't Dutch in the game as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sun Zi 36
|
|
Imran Siddiqui:
wat is the contradiction? the two quotes u made r clearly about different issues. The first one is about whether minority adhere to majority culture in America, the second is whether the minority THINK THEY ARE part of the NATION called America. The second only contributes a little to the first and the first is the real issue.
quote:
"And yes, minorities DO adhere to similar culture of majority of Americans. The culture of coke and rock & roll, of Microsoft and McDonalds. THAT is American culture... |
Seems to me that everyone here, inconsistent with the opinions expressed in the other poll about "significant influence", think that cultural achievements is all that which matters. does it happen only bcos the subject is America? Yes, coke and rock&roll and Microsoft etc ORIGINATED from America, but does it follow then that it is culture exclusively OF the Americans? Is the aspect of culture raised UNIQUE of the Americans? No it is not. Therefore u cannot define Americans as a civ bcos of those aspects of culture. Those are aspects of CULTURE (as opposed to cultural achievements) of a larger group of people. Wat i m arguing against America as a civ is, as u should all know by now, its UNIQUENESS.
quote:
"THAT is American culture, add to that the idea of cultural diversity that underscores it." |
This point again implies the failure to understand that CULTURE DEFINES CIVILIZATION. its logic is still locked up in the cage of the idea that political borders and geographical terms define a civilization. This is indicated bcos the logic of the statement only holds when u remove the word "culture". Cultural diversity within a culture? How can A CULTURE, if defined properly, have a different cultures within it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sun Zi 36
|
|
Oligarf:
Again i m stressing that culture should define civilsation, not political units. An "Empire" could have many cultures within in. So can the people in many empires share a common culture. i agree that time is not relevant to whether civs should be in civ3.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2001 12:07
.........just i like them ....like to destroy
longer than te U.S .... long time ago ...
|