A Civilization

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
better termed the Anglo-Saxon civilisation

Probably better termed the anglo-saxon-nordic civ, given the large numbers of Brits from the northern parts of England whose ancestors came a-viking to the island at the end of the first millennium.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


By your reasoning, Germany shouldn't be a civ as it wasnt united until a few hundred years ago.

Yes, but the people and cultures that it represents have been around much longer.

[Tingkai]

I like KrazyHorse's definition of civilization. It shows the U.S. and Britain are seperate civilizations.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Maybe in another thousand years or so the Americans and the British will have diverged enough to be considered members of different civilisations. Until then, they:
1)Speak the same language (though very slightly different dialects)
2)Exist under remarkably similar economic systems
3)Exist under political systems which are virtually equivalent (minus a few pro forma items)
4)Have common goals
5)Are, in the main, composed of peoples with similar backgrounds and religious beliefs
6)Have an inextricably intertwined history together, even after the rift of the Revolution

1. All British people speak English. Many Americans do not (they speak Spanish, Cantonese, Italian, etc.)
2. The British economy is a welfare state, the American economy is not.
3. The British political system is a constitutional monarchy, the American system is not. The British Prime Minister is determined by the political party that gets the most seats, the American president is directly elected. The U.S. has a federal-state government system, Britain does not.
4) Britain is aligned with the EU, the U.S. is not. The U.S. intervened in Vietnam, Britain did not, etc.
5) The vast majority of British people have extensive roots in Britain. A sizeable segment of the American population have no roots in Britain.
6. An inextricably intertwined history together? Well, I guess if you are referring to being at war (War of 1812). Did the Brits get actively involved in the U.S. civil war, no. Did the U.S. help Britain fight its colonial wars, no. When Britain went to war in 1914 and 1939, did the U.S. immediately jump in on Britain's side, no.

Congrats KrazyHorse on proving the American civilization is different from the British Civ.

[KrazyHorse]

1: Not all British people speak English as their first language. There are large numbers of immigrants in England who do not, and very small numbers of Welsh who are incomprehensible to the rest of the country.

2: The British system has less State intervention in the economy than any of the G7 countries except for the US. The British and American systems are remarkably similar when compared to the rest of the world, and not just in terms of laws: also in terms of the actual state of both economies.

3: Constitutional monarchy: whatever. The only real difference between the two is the separation of the "legislative" and "executive" branches. Compare the two systems to the actual functioning of any non-european state, and see how similar they are.

4: Britain is barely "aligned" with the EU. They haven't traded in their currency, and on security issues the Brits are far closer to the US than they are to France.

5: Same answer as in 1

6: 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. Answer my question: are Austria and Germany both members of the same civilisation? If not, are there any two separate countries which can be considered membes of the same civilisation? If the answer to this is also no, then what's the difference between a civilisation and a nation?

[TechWins]

I think it's better to say that the Americans and the English, and also the Candians (maybe except Quebec) and Australians and New Zealanders are all part of one civilisation, better termed the Anglo-Saxon civilisation.

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.

[KrazyHorse]

TW, answer my question: are Austria and Germany members of different civs? There's more of a difference between them than there is between the US and Britain.

[hetairoi22]

What a stupid discussion!

ALL nations are unique in some way or another. Just because Germany is simular to Austria, Brazil has the same language as the Spanish and USA was once an English colony doesn't mean thay have no RIGHT to be in a computer game!

Stupis, stupid, stupid thread...

[KrazyHorse]

Bugger off. We're having an informative discussion about what constitutes a civilisation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It's true that a lot of these similarities apply to many nations, but if they all did to two separate nations, then I would class these nations as being part of the same civilisation. Example: Austria and Germany. Different nations, same civilisation.

Let's take another example: Sweden and Denmark. Different languages, but the other 5 similarities still hold, with the differences being roughly equivalent to the differences between the US and Britain. I'd still classify them as the same civilisation. You can't apply the term "civilisation" to every nation that crops up; being of a different civilisation implies having a markedly different lifestyle, history and culture. I don't see the fundamental differences between the US and Britain which exist between, say, France and Britain.

read de tocqueville - for example on the subject of an inclination towards broad theorizing, which the french do a lot of, and which is alien to the british - he finds the americans right in between, no closer to the british than to the french.

and i daresay the role of classical music in our high culture, well not quite making us Germans, makes us at least as close to the germans as to the British.

and the role of advanced art makes us as close to the french as to the british.

and our informality, and sometimes naive openness, some have claimed make us closer to Russian (!!!!!!) than to any west europeans.

the notion that american civ is part of british civ is based on allowing the commonality of language to blind one to all other cultural/civilizational factors.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
TW, answer my question: are Austria and Germany members of different civs? There's more of a difference between them than there is between the US and Britain.

Have you read much about turn of the century austria-hungary, there is a school of thought (fairly) controversial associated with the historian Schorske, that sees austria as definitely a different culture than Germany, and one that has remarkable parallels with the US!!!!!

LOTM

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by hetairoi22
Brazil has the same language as the Spanish

Portugese is the first language of Brazil

and very small numbers of Welsh who are incomprehensible to the rest of the country

With the just the variety in "English" accents there are many people who cannot understand what each other is saying. For example Geordies, Scousers and Cockneys speak the same words but different language.

[TechWins]

KH,

I can't answer your question with giving an ignorant answer, I'm not too familiar with the Austrian background. If you say there is a bigger difference between Germany and Austria than there is between the US and Britain then I would say Germany and Austria are seperate civs. I say this because US and Britain are different enough from each other to be considered different civs. Why again because the US as adopted their own way of being. If the game did stop pre-20th century then the US shouldn't be included. The US hadn't truely molded together their own civ until this past century. Before this century the civ was a Britain based civ. Now with all these influences coming about into this civ of Britain's there has been a new civ created, the US civ.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
1: Not all British people speak English as their first language. There are large numbers of immigrants in England who do not, and very small numbers of Welsh who are incomprehensible to the rest of the country.

2: The British system has less State intervention in the economy than any of the G7 countries except for the US. The British and American systems are remarkably similar when compared to the rest of the world, and not just in terms of laws: also in terms of the actual state of both economies.

yeah since maggie thatcher. pre-1979, when UK was still socialist, this was not true.

3: Constitutional monarchy: whatever. The only real difference between the two is the separation of the "legislative" and "executive" branches. Compare the two systems to the actual functioning of any non-european state, and see how similar they are.

compared to non-european states? well if you're saying US is part of Western Civ, I agree. Along with Germany, Spain, France, and Britain.

4: Britain is barely "aligned" with the EU. They haven't traded in their currency, and on security issues the Brits are far closer to the US than they are to France.
?

NO common currency - but common external tariffs, no internal tariffs, common labor market, etc Britain is very much aligned with EU. Or can i quote you when i apply for a job in Germany?

AS for security - yes UK is closer to US than France on security issues. But then so is Germany, and not that long ago Germany was generally closer to US on security issues than UK. Does that make US German? Do you remember 1973, when OPEC banned oil exports to US and Netherlands, but rewarded France and UK with larger rations? Did that make US Dutch?

6: 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. Answer my question: are Austria and Germany both members of the same civilisation? If not, are there any two separate countries which can be considered membes of the same civilisation? If the answer to this is also no, then what's the difference between a civilisation and a nation?

Er, uhm, states have armies, leaders, ministers, declarations of war, etc all of which civs do not have

Clearly the protagonists in "civilization" are states, not civilizations.

LOTM

[KrazyHorse]

I think maybe the problem here is just one of definitions. I think it takes a lot to distinguish two civs from each other. Some people here think it takes less. 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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
6: 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. Answer my question: are Austria and Germany both members of the same civilisation? If not, are there any two separate countries which can be considered membes of the same civilisation? If the answer to this is also no, then what's the difference between a civilisation and a nation?

there is a western civilization. it includes all of the european origin peoples who speak Romance, germanic or celtic languages, as well those of non-european origin who have assimilated into those societies. It arguably includes also those slavic societies whose religion is roman catholic - poland, czechs, slovaks, croats and slovenes. The relationship of russia and other orthodox slavic countries is a matter of some controversy, as is that of Greece. And that of Latin American countries where the native civilization is still very strong, notably Mexico.

The western civ includes within itself numerous cultures. these cultures can be roughly divided by language, but the division of languages among states with different histories and cultural orientations leaves some complexity.

For example Viennese culture was, arguably very different from German culture, however the culture of German speakers within the Austria empire, in tyrol or the sudetenland ,for example was much more "german" than "viennese" complicating the picture of an "austrian" culture. Many would see strong parallels among the scandinavian states in attitudes to politcs, economy, morality etc while others would see Sweden as fairly distinctive from Norway and Denmark. Historically catholic flanders was distinctive from protestant holland, but the growth of the catholic population in holland and the rise of secularism may lessen this distinctiveness. Parallel issues are raised by the relation of France to Walloonia and to Swiss (but francophone, but protestant) Geneva.

These issues are not idle today, as a Northern League asserts the distinctiveness of Northern Italy from the South, and as Scotland struggles towards autonomy.

And clearly there are issues of scale and geography here - a country of the size and degree of physical isolation of the US is capable of attaining a degree of cultural distinctiveness that is not possible for say, Norway vis a vis Denmark. Nor do any of these nations have the demographic diversity of the United States. In this, as in scale, the only good comparison in Europe is Austria-Hungary, and that is coloured by the rift between Vienna and the rest of German Austria - a rift for which nothing comparable exists in the US vis a vis UK. While Vienna was cosmopolitan, heterogeneous, and very Jewish, the tyrol, sudeten etc were homogeneous, provincial, relatively anti-semitic, and very German.
In the US, otoh, the provincial, uncosmopolitan sections are also distinctly less anglophile than the cosmpolitan great cities.

LOTM