A Civilization

[General Ludd]

I think what qualifies the civilisations in the civ games(with the exception of the americans) is that they all represent a historical group of people, culture, or area of the world that all date back to prehistoric times, and they also fit nicely into the theme.

[Ozymandias]

We are confusing nations, cultures, and civlizations.

Nations are obvious: a territory ruled by a government which acknowledges no higher temporal authority than itself.

Cultures are shared assumptions about reality: what is of value, what constitutes morality, etc. Ethnicity is not necessarily important (modern America; ancient Rome) or might be of paramount importance (Nazi Germany; recent wartime ex-Yugoslavia).

A civilization, at least in game terms, seems best described as a culture changing over time: "Germans" span many nations and systems of government from Vercingetorix defeating the Roman legions in the Teutobergerwald to being the heartland of the Holy Roman Empire through Kaiser Wilhelm and so on. The set of assumtpions about reality -- the culture which might let us define the Germans in game terms as "militaristic" and "scientific" -- never entirely changes. Bits of it evolve separately over time -- in game terms, the Czar's Holy Russia and Stalin's terror are one in the same civlization, with definite cultural continuities AND differences: two nations; one cultural continuum, one Civilization.

-Ozymandias

[Alexander I]

Arminius, not Vercingettorix!

Arminius (Hermann) was the Germanic chieftain who slaughtered three Roman legions in the Teutoburger Wald during the reign of Augustus.

Vercingettorix was the Celtic Gaul chieftain who lost and surrendered to Julius Caesar.

Just a side note. When proving a point with data or anecdotes, make sure your facts are accurate.

P.S. Brazilians speak Portuguese, not Spanish, to whomever said that earlier...

[Ozymandias]

Woops, sorry, yes ... You are quite right. Herman. And his Hermits (sorry, just showing my age).

-O.

[DarkCloud]

KrazyHorse- about his post, yes he was talking about nations, but if one analyzes his post further you discover:

Brazil is a civ.

Startling in its aspects, but look at it like this.

Indigenous Indians of Brazil mixed with the Spanish settlers, etc. Brazil has exerted its influence over South America becoming one of the most populated countries in the world. Other things are important about Brazil.

New York is not a country or a nation, it is a region.

Also, if you include America as a civ, you don't necessarily have to include Canada, Australia or New Zealand as they are part of the "British Commonwealth" or 'empire' and thus are not truly considered independent, despite the fact that they are. But by the definition of a civ, their clinging to GBR makes them remain not independent.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Originaly posted by Osweld

Originally posted by Joseph1944
America very minor contribution to the world.
First to installed a Steam Engine in a Ship/Boat
First country to build a Machine Gun
First country with a Telegraph
First to lay a cable between two Continents
First country with a Telephone
First country with Electrical Lights
First country to build an Airplane that flew on it’s own power source. Wright Flyer
First country to fly faster than the speed of sound. .X-1
First country to build a Airplane that flew in space. X-15
First country to build an Airplane that routinely flys above 80,000 ft at mach 3 + (2,010 mph). Actually it is much faster, but they won’t tell us how fast. SR-71
First country to produce a Nuclear Chain Reaction
First country to build a Nuclear Power Ship. USS Nautilus SSN-571
First country to install a Nuclear Power Reator in an Airplane for testing. ] RB-36
First country to build an airplane that will fly 10,000 miles on one tank of gas. B-36
First country to send a Man to the Moon. Hmmm the only country to sent a Man to the Moon.
I of course realize these are very minor in world scope of thing.

Your way off there, that’s only the tip of the iceberg.
and its not how much it mattered to the world, it gives us our own image or culture. We accomplished these things as Americans with American Pride. Not English or any other country.

That post was for our friend around the world that keep saying we have done nothing for the world.

[d_dudy]

sid meir is american, so america should be in civ

another reason: civ is a computer game, and guess what....we have a lot of computer's over here! why is that? because we can afford to have nice cool things like that. why is that? because we kick ass. yes, it really is that simple.

now, all the foreigners who wish their countries could be as powerful as mine may commence insulting me as another ignorant american.

[tniem]

I just want to give a sense that the makeup of America has nothing to do with England.

So I checked the US Census 2000 and found this

One race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274,595,678 97.6
White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,460,626 75.1
Black or African American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,658,190 12.3
American Indian and Alaska Native . . . . . . . . . . . 2,475,956 0.9
Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,242,998 3.6
Some other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,359,073 5.5
Two or more races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,826,228 2.4

So 75% of the country is white in 2000. That means that at least 25% of Americans have nothing to do with England.

And I am white and am mostly German and Dutch. I have a little English from way back when in my system but nothing to link me to that civilization. Instead my family helped fight for my nation's freedom.

I don't mind not being a civ because we have not been around long enough but to be told I am a part of England is just proposterous.

[Tingkai]

I'll give KrazyHorse credit for his excellent debating move. He gets backed into a corner with his claim that the U.S. civ is similar to the Brit civ, so he goes on the offensive by throwing out the red herring about Germany and Austria. And it works to some degree. The conversation starts moving away from the faulty theory.

But his response to my points are rather outlandish.

The vast majority British people (99 per cent?) speak English as a first language and have a relatively homogeneous background. Tniem's post shows the American population is far different.

KrazyHorse wrote: "The only real difference between the two [UK and US political systems] is the separation of the "legislative" and "executive" branches."

The two governing systems are dramatically different. The U.S. political system is a full democracy. Britain has a limited democracy. The U.S. head of state is elected; in British he/she is not. The U.S. Senate is elected; the House of Lords is not. The American governing system is based on the division of power between state and the federal government. The British system is just beginning to experiment with this concept. The Americans have a constitution and bill of rights, the rules of government in Britain are based on common law. The U.S. has a division between church and state, Britain does not.

The British society is a class system where a few people have more privileges because of their birth. The American system has no such birth right.

The dominant religion in Britain is a specific Christian sub-group, the Anglican church. The U.S. has no dominant Christian sub-group.

KrazyHorse wrote: "Jesus, you're deliberately being obtuse here. I didn't say that they were a unified State; I said that they were members of the same civilisation."

Actually, what you said was that Britain and the U.S. "have an inextricably intertwined history together, even after the rift of the Revolution."

This is simply not the case. American history is very separate from British history.

One of the basic problems with the US-is-the-same-civ-as-the-Brits argument is that it is based on an incorrect notion that the United States is simply a former English colony. This overlooks the fact that at the time of the American revolution, the territory of the United States consisted of lands owned by the First Nations, the English colonies, the French colony, and the Spanish colonies. Since then, a massive influx of immigrants from around the world reduced the significance of the English colonial culture in the original states.

The melting pot of American society is what truly makes it a distinctive civilization.

[Tingkai]

I've been thinking about why the Brits want to claim the U.S. as being part of their civilization. What is the underlying motive for such a theory?

It is, I think, a rather sad attempt to latch onto the glory of others. The Brit civilization is dead in the water compared to the vibrant and evolving American civilization so the Brits try to claim credit for what is happening across the pond. The Brits don't want to admit they are a non-player on the international scene and that their once glorious country is now simply a small part of Europe.

I don't mean to single out the Brits. I'm sure every former great power goes through the same struggle of trying to define their new identity. It must be hard to go from a global empire to just a European island.

[monkspider]

I am having to agree with Lord of the Mark, Krazyhorse and Co. in this debate, and yes, I am American. But I'm not so blindly nationalistic as to fail to accept rather rudimentry knowledge.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by tniem
So 75% of the country is white in 2000. That means that at least 25% of Americans have nothing to do with England

Now you're mixing nationality by blood/descent with civilisation. I'm sure we all agree that many modern Americans would not be able to trace back any significant number of ancestors to England. The UK is no longer anything like 100% white either so just showing a breakdown by ethnicity is misleading.

[Tingkai]

I liked KrazyHorse comment that: "To me, civilisation is a term which is: broader than culture, deeper than nationhood and with more of a "real" existence in people's hearts than historical relationships. It is, in short, a way of life."

This seems to be one of the better definitions that I have read, although I am not sure that I am interpreting it correctly. KrazyHorse, what do you mean when you write "More of a 'real' existence in people's hearts than historical relationships."?

[kolpo]

I think taht it is just that civilization has 2 meanings:

-Nation, confederation(like E.U.) or federation that has much influence in a certain period of history.
This is the defenition that civ3 uses in my view

-A big group of different nations with a similar religion and culture. Based on that defenition are there currently the following civilizations: western civilization, islamitic civilization, japanese civilization(some see it as sub civ of Buddistic or Chinese civ), Buddistic civilization, Chinese civilization, Indian civilization, Slavish civilization(Russia, Greece, Servia,...), South American civilization,African civilization, Jewish civilization(smallest civ, in fact only 1 nation that even has a lot of enemies).

There are also nations who are a combination of 2 civs, like Turkey(combination western civilization and islamitic civilization)

In this defenition are there also sub civs: western civilization: European civ, North American civ, Australian civ. or slavish civilization: Greece civ(Greece, Servia, Macedonia,...) and Russian civ(Bellarus, Russia, East Oekrainë)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I've been thinking about why the Brits want to claim the U.S. as being part of their civilization. What is the underlying motive for such a theory?

It is, I think, a rather sad attempt to latch onto the glory of others. The Brit civilization is dead in the water compared to the vibrant and evolving American civilization so the Brits try to claim credit for what is happening across the pond. The Brits don't want to admit they are a non-player on the international scene and that their once glorious country is now simply a small part of Europe.

Perhaps if I was British...

If you missed it, my claim was that the "anglo-saxon-norman" civilisation was centred on the Thames for some centuries, but that it has now moved to Washington DC (or New York, or LA, arguably). If anything, I'm demonstrating that the UK is the US's b*tch, as it were.

I'll give KrazyHorse credit for his excellent debating move. He gets backed into a corner with his claim that the U.S. civ is similar to the Brit civ, so he goes on the offensive by throwing out the red herring about Germany and Austria. And it works to some degree. The conversation starts moving away from the faulty theory

If you can't see the parallel, then that's your dilemma. My claim is that the US and Britain are so alike that if you want to claim them as members of separate civilisations, then you're going to have to grant the same claim to basically every nation on the planet. If you think that this is a suitable definition for "civilisation" then that's fine with me.