Canada?

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


The borders of a "nation" need not be official - a nation doesn't need to be an actual political unit within a state. All it needs is common identity. One could possibly identify the following nations within the US:

Black nation
WASP nation
Native American nations
Mexican nation
Gay nation
Southern nation
Texan nation
etc

The list is debateable.

You forgot the Raider Nation (1-5 wooot!)

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
The Pedophile, of course. Recruits all other male units into the Gay Nation.

I'm not too sure about that... I mean, those male units are grown men.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MasterDave


It certainly is. The definition of "State" that we use in the US would probably be more of a "Province" in most other places. There is more than one definition for "State" that is legitimate.

We can use "State" to mean what the US calls its various political subdivisions. We can also use "nation" to mean what is properly called a "state".
But someone made the contention that Canada does not deserve inclusion in Civ4 on the basis that it is not 1 nation, but rather is a country (I use state) split between 2 nations. I was countering that, pointing to other states ("countries") that have multiple nations and yet are included in Civ4.

Given that you were the one to reply, and you seem to have a non-colloquial useage of the word "nation", then let us also then use the proper definition for state

Nations, in the traditional definition I am aware of are unified cultural groups that at one time or another been associated with a geographic region and share a common history. Poles, Serbs, Native Americans (further divided into Iriqois, Souix, Mohawks, etc), Mexicans, Swedes would be examples of "Nations" regardless of whether or not they have their own country at a given time. Purely ethnic groups or other minorities (such as Gays or WASPs (Although Anglo-Saxons are themselves a nation- leave out the White and Protestant part) are not "Nations" in that they do not have a singular unifying cultural identity nor a unified historical "homeland" (e.g. African Americans could be from any part of Africa originally, some are recent immigrants, most have been in the USA for five or more generations).

Nations tend to be associated with a common geographic area and may even have common history, but they do not need these things in order for them to be considered a "nation". All that a nation particularly requires is common identification of nationhood: This typically is the result of common cultural tendencies, but again, it need not be. The many peoples of India may share history and even historical "homelands" and yet may not consider themselves a part of the same nation.
The Roma people may also be considered a nation, despite not having a "homeland". Mongolians may also be considered a nation, despite many of them remaining nomadic.
Hence, your definition that makes a group of people a nation iff they have a homeland and cultural identity would seem to exclude some groups that we might otherwise define as a nation.
As well, you seem to imply that blacks in the US cannot be considered a nation becaues their "Homeland" is in Africa. This would seem to be a very restrictive definition, for a nation becomes a nation iff it has a cultural identity, has a homeland, and resides within that homeland. Are the Chinese in Taiwan a nation? Turks in Russia? Magyars in Slovakia? Native Americans outside of their ancestral homelands?
I think my definition, that of common identification, is both more accurate with respect to the world as it is and more useful, in that large unified cultural groups are able to be treated as "nations" and evaluated as such.

The list itself is indeed debateable - do gays have their own culture, or self-identification to the point where they may be considered a nation? Do white people? WASPs? These various points can be debated, and I do not particularly wish to do so. I would certainly say that many Mexicans in the US and many Blacks in the US have strong identities apart from the American identity. Even by your definition, you do consider Native Americans and Mexicans as "nations". Hence, you have already conceeded that the US has many nations within it. Whether we include blacks or Raiders or Apolyton fans as "nations" is a matter of debate, but it isn't my contention that they necesarily are: I contend that the US is a state with many nations. You seem to recognise that there are many nations, and I don't think you'll dispute that the US is a state.

Therefore, if a state is barred from being in Civ4 because it is not 1 nation, then the US, Britain, and Russia should likewise be excluded (along with a great many of them, in fact).
Plus, if we want to be really anal about it, in Civ4 each state is described as being an "Empire", indicating that they are not nation-states anyway

I'm not too sure about that... I mean, those male units are grown men.

Don't you know! The gays have secret powers to recruit ANY male...Thats why if we don't outlaw gay marriage, society will collapse!!1

[Will9]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Black nation
WASP nation
Native American nations
Mexican nation
Gay nation
Southern nation
Texan nation
etc

Black nation- Blacks are the majority in southern Alabama, Mississippi, and southern Georgia, South Carolina, eastern North Carolina, and eastern Virgina, and this is the one of the few correct ones on the list.

WASP nation- they are spread out, and even in areas they were once the overwellming majority, they are a minority. They are only the majority in about 20 New England counties.

Native American nations- yes

Mexican nation- yes

Gay nation- minority everywhere, except some spread out very small areas which they make their own.

Southern nation- I am in a family that has lived in the South (I am one of the few members of the family that have gone north) since (lets just say they were some of Alabamas first settlers), so I can tell you southern culture is much like the culture in most of America. The only culture in the South that is different from most of America's is the so called "Black nation"

Texan nation- they are probably the most proud of the state, but that doesn't make them a nation.

Here are the nations I see in America:

Black nation- area stated above
Native American- Oklahoma, northern Arizona, Hawaii, and Alaska
Hispanic nation- along the Mexican border
American nation- everywhere not in the areas already stated.

[Alexander I]

I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as all that. I think the boundries of these diverse groups are fuzzy and it is easy to blend, mix and match.

[Nubclear]

Who knew that Canada could be so controversial?

[Xorbon]

It seems like the topic is no longer about Canada. The controversy seems to be about the definition of states, countries, and nations. This thread has become an arguement about semantics. It's a familiar theme here at Apolyton.

[Jaybe]

When global warming is such that Canada has the highest banana production (and the tropics too hot to produce any, as may well happen), then Yes, they should be included.

But not until.

[Hunter007_PL]

Canada? Hmm, yeah it is a big individual, but young nation, mixed from English and French emigrants... But they have many ethnic minorities (2.5% are Polish for example...). They are almost like USA young and advanced, but... 10% of USA population, and no ingerence in world's grownth... Should they be included in Civ?

Yeah, in my opinion of course YES, there should be included 100 civs, and almost everyone without firaxis :P will be happy... The price of making new civ is very very low (Polish programmers made Pilish civ), but if there are 100 civs in the game they will have to include 2 DVD... And there is 1-3 USD more (it depends on price of record such CD...) , and it will weight 20g more :P, transport will cost 0.1 USD more because of that... And when the price is higher, the demand is lower (economics).... In my opinion, the people who will not buy civ 4 because of 3 USD more are less than people who will buy it because of new civs, but i am sure that firaxis's knowleage is better than mine...

There is so big number of Civs now (like Canada, Argentina, Brazil), historical (like Prussia-they destroued Poland so I don't like them..., Mayans) and ancient-Hebrews, Middle East empires, and many many more...)...

Everything depends on how many civs do they want to include in next expansion... If 20-25 new of course Canada chould be included... If 5-10 -NO WAY... If 10-15...? Rather no... If 15-20 rather YES... If more than 20- Absolutly yes ...

I hope they include many many civs in next expansion... ...

[Will9]

Making a new civ takes more time than anything else. Leader heads take tons of time to make. Plus a they must come up with a UU and UB. Firaxis won't make 10+ unless they have plans to release xp2 in a year.

[Dis]

It should be noted that each state has it's own national guard unit. I'm not sure what that means in terms of individual nations, but it's worht mentioning. And states still have their own goverment. We aren't as independent as we were in 1776, but we still try to pass our own laws.

In my state the fed stepped in to try to disrail our marijuana legalization The head of the DEA used public money to travel to our state to argue against the legalization. This is just wrong.

There are times I miss the days when states had more power to govern themselves. But the feds have done good things like outlaw slavery. So you can't knock it too much I guess.

[Bobby Chicken]

Originally posted by Will9

Texan nation- they are probably the most proud of the state, but that doesn't make them a nation.

I don't know. We have billboards down here that say: "Our nation, Our truck" along with a Texas flag.

[Bobby Chicken]

I believe the term state is used in America instead of province since under the Articles or Condedearation, the states were to truly allo be there own nations, joined together simillarilly to the UN. But the northern states wanted to institute a federal government. The U.S. modified the plan to institute a national government that meant the nation had somewhat more control over this. The southern states always instisted on the freedom of individual states, but the northern states denied them this privilege and essentially stole southern money to use on northern projects. So the south was somewhat backward, being subservient to the north. The north then wanted to purge the south of slavery instead of minding their own business. This was the last straw and the south suceeded from the U.S., an act not forbidden in any U.S. laws. However, the "righteous" north, headed by the well-meaning but obviously inept Abraham Lincoln, declared war on the confederate states of America, the orginazation formed to be what the south thought the U.S. should have always been. Lincoln and the North wanted unity, not realizing that there really is no unity in stealing money from the pooring part of a nation. After one inept bumbling after another, Lincoln issued the emancipation proclomation, which freed every slave in the nation he was fighting, but did nothing to end slavery in any province actually under his jusrisdiction (yes, I have read it). That made him look good and encouraged many of the slaves to join his forces. Of course, since the north was a much larger and more urbanized area, they eventually won the war and forced the south back into submission. Even now, some of these areas are still recovering from the oppression forced upon them by the federal rule Lincoln forced upon them. After Lincoln, that national government retained its excessive power, so that the states aren't substantially different from one another. Hence, we get the innacurate term state. I am to lazy to find the facts, but if you look this stuff up in original sources, you'll find it's all true. I get most of it from Jackdaws (strange name, I know), packets of copies of original doccuments conccerning certain historical events.

[Bobby Chicken]

Oh, BTW, I don't think Canada should be a civilization considering that it has really done anything great. I'm sure it's a fine place to live (a little bit liberal for me, I'm told, and little cold too), but Australia or New Zealand would be a nice place to live too....

[Nubclear]