A Civilization

[OneFootInTheGrave]

USA is currently a cornerstone of western civilization, and that is the reason it is worthy of being a civ.

[KrazyHorse]

Another "nation=civ"er.

[Sun Zi 36]

Originally posted by TechWins


"Well, if you were to exclude Quebec you would then have to exclude all of these other nations. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and USA are not apart of the Britain civ. Just becuase they have influences from the Britain civ doesn't mean they are apart of the Britain civ. Take the Canadians for example, they have Indian, British, and French civ influences. Yet they are being called a Britain civ. All of these nations are not apart of the Britain civ because they have enough influences from other civs that they have become their own civ."

I think all of the points raised above can be refuted by more careful reading of one sentence of my last post.

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

"I think many civilizations can exist within one nation and one civilization can exist across nations."

Canada became its own civ just bcos it has Indian, French culture? I think you are confusing "nation" with "civilization" here (an inevitable result when you try to explain why US is a civ). Let me explain what my sentence meant further. "Civilizations can exist within one nation" -- ie, French, Anglo-Saxon, Indian civilizations can exist within Canada, OR, Anglo-Saxon, Spanish, Asian civilizations can exist within US. "One civilization can exist across nations" -- ie French people in Quebec and France one civilization, German people in Germany and Austria part of one civilzation, Chinese people across the globe one civilization, Slavic people across the globe one civilization OR Anglo-Saxon people across the globe (mostly in Australia, Canada, NZ, Britain, US) one civilization. The concept of civilization relates to culture, not nations, thus the whole big deal about culture in Civ3. By French people, German people, Anglo-Saxon people, Chinese people, Slavic people I mean people adhering to those "cultures" named French, German, Anglo-Saxon, Chinese, Slavic and NOT the nationalities.

Actually, this discussion is rather pointless but I admire krazyhorse's courage in bringing this issue up when knowing it would lead to nothing. A lot of people's definition of civilization here is distorted bcos they want to defend their own nation's status as a civilization. That is why people are accepting a much looser definition of civilization, eg Canada is a civilization or a civilization once a nation has established it's own image. Their intent to defend their nation's status as a civilization bcos of patriotism is very clearly reflecated by the fact that some of them repeatedly posted the list of achievements of their nation. To me, the list doesn't contribute to why their country is a civilization. Nobody is doubting the fact that the USA is the most powerful nation on earth for the past 80 years or more and probably still would be for at least 40 more years. Is objectivity and rationalism really that weak when faced with nationalism and hysteria?

I know this is only a game and the biggest market is America and sid meier is the creator so he can do whatever he wants. This discussion operates based on the fact that these reasons don't apply and we are only concerned with the principles of the game. If we players are also concerned about commercial or personal interests of the game creator, it would be very hard to find enjoyment in the game.

[Sun Zi 36]

Originally posted by TechWins


"Well, if you were to exclude Quebec you would then have to exclude all of these other nations. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and USA are not apart of the Britain civ. Just becuase they have influences from the Britain civ doesn't mean they are apart of the Britain civ. Take the Canadians for example, they have Indian, British, and French civ influences. Yet they are being called a Britain civ. All of these nations are not apart of the Britain civ because they have enough influences from other civs that they have become their own civ."

I think all of the points raised above can be refuted by more careful reading of one sentence of my last post.

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

"I think many civilizations can exist within one nation and one civilization can exist across nations."

Canada became its own civ just bcos it has Indian, French culture? I think you are confusing "nation" with "civilization" here (an inevitable result when you try to explain why US is a civ). Let me explain what my sentence meant further. "Civilizations can exist within one nation" -- ie, French, Anglo-Saxon, Indian civilizations can exist within Canada, OR, Anglo-Saxon, Spanish, Asian civilizations can exist within US. "One civilization can exist across nations" -- ie French people in Quebec and France one civilization, German people in Germany and Austria part of one civilzation, Chinese people across the globe one civilization, Slavic people across the globe one civilization OR Anglo-Saxon people across the globe (mostly in Australia, Canada, NZ, Britain, US) one civilization. The concept of civilization relates to culture, not nations, thus the whole big deal about culture in Civ3. By French people, German people, Anglo-Saxon people, Chinese people, Slavic people I mean people adhering to those "cultures" named French, German, Anglo-Saxon, Chinese, Slavic and NOT the nationalities.

I think there is a perception in this post that ppl like krazyhorse and I intend that the US should be "a part of" the British civilization and that is what they resist most. Let me repeat by saying this is not the case. US is not subsidiary of UK if that's what most people here are most sensitive about. And that is also why I used the word Anglo-Saxon instead.

Actually, this discussion is rather pointless but I admire krazyhorse's courage in bringing this issue up when knowing it would lead to nothing. A lot of people's definition of civilization here is distorted bcos they want to defend their own nation's status as a civilization. That is why people are accepting a much looser definition of civilization, eg Canada is a civilization or a civilization once a nation has established it's own image. Their intent to defend their nation's status as a civilization bcos of patriotism is very clearly reflecated by the fact that some of them repeatedly posted the list of achievements of their nation. To me, the list doesn't contribute to why their country is in itelf a civilization instead of a super power nation. Nobody is doubting the fact that the USA is the most powerful nation on earth for the past 80 years or more and probably still would be for at least 40 more years. Is objectivity and rationalism really that weak when faced with nationalism and hysteria?

I know this is only a game and the biggest market is America and sid meier is the creator so he can do whatever he wants. This discussion operates based on the fact that these reasons don't apply and we are only concerned with the principles of the game. If we players are also concerned about commercial or personal interests of the game creator, it would be very hard to find enjoyment in the game.

[Tingkai]

I agree with Sun Zi that civilization is more linked to culture than to nationality, but many people are making the mistake of assuming that sharing a common language (English) means that two cultures (American and Anglo-Saxon) are one civilization. I do not believe that civilization is linked to language. China and Japan share a written language with both being able to read most of the other's pictograms. But they are distinct civilizations. At the same time, within China, there are many forms of spoken language, yet the Chinese belong to one culture.

The culture of the United States is distinct from that of the Anglo-Saxon culture. Consider two of the most important music forms of the 20th century - the Blues and Jazz. Neither originated from Anglo-Saxon music. Blues and Jazz have African roots.

And as the song says "the Blues had a baby, and they called it Rock and Roll."

Or look at architecture. The skyscraper is a dominant American form of building yet there is nothing distinctly British about it. And the ubiquitious shopping mall is definitely and American invention with no links to Britian.

The American political system, which has an extensive influence on American culture, has roots in Greek democracy and the Iroquois Confederation (originator of the state/federal division of power and a written constitution). There is nothing Anglo-Saxon about democracy. The British political system has yet to achieve full democracy.

The American identity is rooted in the concept of a lone immigrant coming to a new country in rags and becoming rich. Any American can become the president. That identity does not exist in British or Anglo-Saxon culture.

Canada is in the infant stages of becoming a distinctive civilization due to rather unique combination of a French and English heritage. But it is likely to become a sub-section of the U.S. Civ simply because of its proximity.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Grumbold
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.

Your right I am. Because I am trying to make a point. The United States was influenced by Britain up until 1776. Then we got our independence and took in people from around the globe. Now if your talking about the US in 1800, I would still say it was a brake away province and could be included under the English civilization.

But no longer.

The country that has emerged is diverse not only in population but also in its way of thinking. The US has not only diversified who lives here but what is said and thought about. To believe otherwise is foolish.

The country first took in Germans, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Russians, and the rest of them. Merged and formed a new society. In the 20th Century, Hispanics, Asians, Blacks (sure they were here but were second class citizens) and others. To say that this nation has been influenced that greatly by the British is a mistake. Many laws were written to be anti-British (quartering acts and right to bear arms).

The US has emerged as a distinctly different Civilization that is now spreading its influence on the rest of the world.

[kolpo]

The British political system has yet to achieve full democracy.

The Bristish INVENTED modern democracy. They where the first long term lasting modern democracy. And Greece was NEVER a real democracy. A big part of the population wasn't allowed to vote: slaves, poor people, ... The Greece where the first try to do something that looks a little like democracy but nothing more. Quite all western nations ahve a democratic system that is more similar to teh British then to the Greece. The only difference is that Bristish works with districs to vote but also nations like France and USA(the states are the voting districs there) have a similar system. In Britain and EVERY western democracy can everyone become prime minister(or president) if he get's enough votes.

The USA are indeed different but the democratic system of quite all western democracies is very similar none of them is really superior or inferior.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

I think im gonna join those who say this thread is or has become lame. Im not saying that your points are not good, they are, but this thread has become ridiculus. (i thought a couple of tingkai's posts were great) The same thing keeps being said over and over and over again only in different ways. Its a dead conversation, no one is gonna change their mind about this subject, it seems like its a matter of opinion. ok i got an idea.

Maybe the word Civilization realy doesnt exist, hear me out. Maybe you have to add a word describing a time period before Civilization for it to be valid. Like in histry books, they usually dont just say Civilization they say Anchant Civilization or Moderen Civilization. Or maybe like Middle age's Civilization.

So America would be a Modern Civilizaton, cause America has only been around for just over 200 years. I think most of you people refer to a civilization as being a Anchient or middle ages civilization.

I bet none of you can name a Modern civilization that couldnt be considered a Anchient or Middle ages Civilization too. Unless of course you consider America to be a Modern Civilization.

[DarkCloud]

As a parting note I would like to say that you can best determine a civilization by its impact on the global economy and who can deny that America has made the most impact

1st Stock Exchange Crash of 1929
2nd Coca Cola and other multinational corporations
Others could probably note other things

The Americans have influenced the world, much like the British, Spanish, Russian, etc. civs of the past, but in different ways.

[Bereta_Eder]

Kolpo,
Greece is not slavic. Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
As a parting note I would like to say that you can best determine a civilization by its impact on the global economy

And another person who thinks that important=distinct.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Krazyhorse your still posting in this thread?

[Sun Zi 36]

I think the only one who is making good points here about why America should be a civilization is Tingkai. I DON'T think language and nationality solely determine two cultures as one civilization, although they might be factors. That's what I tried to explain in my last post.

I have said that culture is most important in determining a civilization. Let's talk about American identity and culture here. Go down to Chinatown and ask the Asians: "Do you think you have the same culture as the white people in America?" The answer would be NO. Don't dispute this fact bcos I know a lot of people in the same position as them. Thus different cultures and civilizations exist within America. At best you could say that the majority culture in America, ie people who adhere to cultures originated from Western Europe and Britain, is a distinct civilization from Britain. However, even with the points raised by Tingkai, I cannot agree that the previous sentence is true. There is not enough difference in culture, at the present time, between the majority culture in America and the majority culture in Britain and the majority culture in Canada and the majority culture in Australia for any of them to be termed distinct civilizations.

It does not matter what new aspect of culture (eg forms of music) originated from where. What we are to consider here is: where is the new aspect of culture adopted and to what extent it is adopted. Thus the Blues and Jazz originated from US but is now part of a much wider culture bcos many parts of the world (even non-Western) has adopted it. Architechture and skyscrapers - is it not adopted in many parts of the world and became their culture? Can you say skyscrapers are not part of the Japanese architechture? BTW, this is due to an increasing global integration of cultures. The American political system is in some ways distinct from its Anglo-Saxon counterparts but there are many fundamental similarities. They are all part of the common law legal system and judges from common law courts can use other common law court cases as precedents.

It is also misleading to use power of a nation to conclude that it is a civilization. Civilization, as I said repeatedly, is based on culture. And I don't see any reason how power (or lack of power) can make a group of people's culture more (or less) distinct. Pls do not mix patriotic feelings into an objective discussion based on reason.

Anyhow, it is impossible to identify all aspects of a group of people's culture but overall, I believe that the differences in culture of most people in America or Britain or Canada or NZ is not enough for them to be classified as having distinct cultures. Therefore they should not be distinct civilizations.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by kolpo


The Bristish INVENTED modern democracy.

That's priceless.

Tell me Kolpo, who won the last election for the British head of state? And I'm not talking about the Prime Minister, who is not the head of state in the British system.

While you're at it Kolpo, maybe you can tell us when the Brits had an election for their upper legislature, the House of Lords. You know, the people who can determine which laws are created.

[kolpo]

The prime minister is the head of state! The king has no real power or never usses it. The House of Lords will never really overtrown a democractic desicion. Just check it out Britain is the first modern democracy(I'm not talking about colonies here just about the island). It's just that they like tradition and for this keep things like the House of Lords but all real power is in the hands of the democratic elected ministers. If the majority of Britain would vote for a party that is against the House of Lords then will it stop to exists so it's existance is also democractic! Is the majority of a democracy likes something that is not democractic is that still a democratic decision.

The only difference is that in Britain the power is in hands many ministers(reduces risk that one bad one can harm the whole nation) and in America only 1.