 |
| |
|
|
siredgar
|
 |
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
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
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sun Zi 36
|
|
it is culture without any doubt. here are some defintitions of civilisation from various dictionaries (Cambrige, dictionary.com, etc)
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nationalist
|
 |
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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":
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sun Zi 36
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
 |
of the "I agree"
Jul 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
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 !!
Last edited by XarXo on 15-03-2002 at 23:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:17
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-02-2002 01:36
|