America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[Ted Striker]

If 'cleaning up' is the same as installing dictators, causing war, killing innocent citizens and exploiting poor farmers, yes, then the USA cleaned up those regions.

Actually I'd have to agree with you there. Margaret Thatcher and Chancellor Kohl were two of the WORST leaders we installed.



USA!

[Oligarf]

Europeans KILLED the majority of the Indian populations before the United States of America ever took action against them. Typical. But if it makes you feel better about your own guilt to point at us as the perps, by all means, live in denial. What we did against them was by no means right, however, we were a minor player in a game you guys had already finished.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you guys had already screwed those places up, many beyond repair. That's why we kicked you out of them and tried to patch them up.

This what you say here is actually saying that Americans are Europeans living on another continent. And that means that every thing you say is wrong about Europe is wrong about the USA. I don't say we, both Europe and USA, are wrong in any way. But you try to make a difference between these two and after having done that saying the one you belong to is good, and the other one is bad. What point are you trying to make with this bull****?

[Oligarf]

Nice image btw, are you trying to say something with it too, or just for fun?

[cavebear]

C'mon folks, ease off a little.

Yes, the Europeans *caused* the deaths of the vast majority of native Americans (North, South, and Central). The South and Central American civilizations were toppled by the Spanish and the North American ones were slowly pushed back and killed off by English and French settlers. But the main killers were measles and smallpox, delivered in person (so to speak) by the earliest European explorers. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond for more (excellent) information.

But it is also true that the surviving Native Americans were methodically destroyed by "Americans". But who were those early "Americans"? They were mostly English, but included Dutch, Germans, French, and Spanish. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the United States began to take on its own character and began to reflect an amalgamation of "non-Western European" people.

When I think of "American" (meaning the United States in this case) I think of a blending of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africans, Native Americans, Orientals, Russians, and Mid-Eastern and Southern Asians.

In 1800, "American" pretty much meant "English". In 1900, it pretty much meant "European". In 2001, it would take a genetics expert to hazard a guess. In 2001, "America" is the most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious nation in the World. "Americans" are now, after only a few hundred years, physically and culturally unique. I hasten to add, "unique" in the same way that most other Nations are.

As far as the World Wars go, I've seen a lot of talk (elsewhere) recently about that. Everyone seems to want to give either complete credit or none whatsoever to the American contribution to the outcome of those struggles.

In WWI, I'm sure it would have worked out about the same way (eventually) without American help. But it also counts that fresh soldiers (and blood and material) did have some effect. One can accept that there are many Europeans alive today who would not be alive if America had not participated in the resolution of that war and shortened it (sparing their ancestors).

In WWII, our participation did matter. We didn't win the war ourselves, only a fool would think so. But equally, England could not have made the assault on Normandy on its own; Germany would have had all Western Europe, and they would have reached a negotiated border with Russia on the Eastern Front eventually.

Why did we participate at all? We weren't particularly threatened by Germany in either war. We wouldn't have been in WWI if we hadn't been shipping munitions to England, and it was one more of those endlessly repeated European squabbles that go back to the fall of the Roman Empire anyway. Same thing for WWII, mostly. Would Germany have attacked us if we hadn't been supplying England then? I doubt it; they needed trade, too. And it sure would have been a lot easier to fight the Japanese if we hadn't been fighting the Germans at the same time (I don't think Germany would have declared war on us if we had been trading with them as a neutral party).

America entered your "World Wars" because, in the end, we really do care about democracy and freedom. We didn't win them ourselves, but they wouldn't have had the same outcomes if we had not participated. Can we just all accept that and go on from there?

[Fresno]

Originally posted by cavebear
Why did we participate at all? We weren't particularly threatened by Germany in either war. We wouldn't have been in WWI if we hadn't been shipping munitions to England, and it was one more of those endlessly repeated European squabbles that go back to the fall of the Roman Empire anyway. Same thing for WWII, mostly. Would Germany have attacked us if we hadn't been supplying England then? I doubt it; they needed trade, too. And it sure would have been a lot easier to fight the Japanese if we hadn't been fighting the Germans at the same time (I don't think Germany would have declared war on us if we had been trading with them as a neutral party).

America entered your "World Wars" because, in the end, we really do care about democracy and freedom. We didn't win them ourselves, but they wouldn't have had the same outcomes if we had not participated. Can we just all accept that and go on from there?

I've heard this many times, but it isn't completely true. The American participation wasn't just altruism.

In the 1930's, when it was already clear war might be inevitable, the congress passed several laws which made it impossible for the American president to let America join the war.

In the late 1930's, Roosevelt was nonetheless trying to prepare America. He didn't succeed because the majority of the American senators were isolationist and anti-European. Among the common people, there was no support for joining the war either.

When the war started in '39, Roosevelt managed to make the USA supplying munitions to the British, but he still had to promise not to enter the war. The munitions were quite helpful for the British, but it was also clear material support alone wouldn't be enough.

It was because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war upon the Americans that the USA finally had no choice but helping the Allied Powers.

I'm glad the Americans finally helped liberating us, but they let Europe suffer far too long.

I already know what kind of reactions I'm going to get. You're all going to say we would be speaking German without the USA. Well, I know that might be true, but it still doesn't mean America served a higher goal as its own interests.

[Trifna]

USA is like Rome

USA may not be around since a long time, it has a tremendous importance and it developed a culture of its own. Even if they are a mix-up of many others, they developed on their own too. The McDonald culture. The free market culture. The world police culture. Well, many things that make USA a distinctive case. And the whole of all this made their expansion succeed.

[TCO]

Something a lifeguard told me

"Everybody loves you right after, you save their life. But give them a few months and you'd be surprised how they come to resent you. Doesn't surprise me. Which would you rather be? a lifeguard or a saved victim."

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by cavebear

But it is also true that the surviving Native Americans were methodically destroyed by "Americans". But who were those early "Americans"? They were mostly English, but included Dutch, Germans, French, and Spanish. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the United States began to take on its own character and began to reflect an amalgamation of "non-Western European" people.

America entered your "World Wars" because, in the end, we really do care about democracy and freedom. We didn't win them ourselves, but they wouldn't have had the same outcomes if we had not participated. Can we just all accept that and go on from there?

Well, for me, 1776 is the cut off point for who did what to whom, in North America; either the colonies declared independence, which means you take the rap, or....
So all those non-ratified, broken treaties, the enforced migrations, the resettlement after resettlement, the massacres...post-1776 it's America's responsibility, no use blaming anybody else. Either you have a doctrine of manifest destiny or you don't. Then of course there's the adventurism abroad; the child learning from the parent, only unfortunately not for the better:

'Philippine Insurrection? Ouuuccccch. The Americans viewed the fighting as an insurrection, not a war. Hence, Americans refer to this episode as the Philippine Insurrection, not the Philippine-American War. The Spanish-American conflict that lasted only three months, is referred to as the Spanish-American War. But the Philippine-American conflict officially lasted three years and is known only as the Philippine Insurrection by America. Actually the fighting between American and the remaining armed groups of Filipinos, whom Americans branded as “bandits,” lasted 16 years (1899-1914). '

from: www.filipino-americans.com/filamwar.html

Amazing what one can do with words, as the Hearst press found encouraging the American public's support in the Spanish-American War:

https://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml

and the spark that blew up the arsenal:

'In 1976, Adm. Hyman Rickover of the U.S. Navy mounted yet another investigation into the cause of the Maine disaster. His team of experts found that the ship's demise was self- inflicted--likely the result of a coal bunker fire. There are those, however, who still maintain that an external blast was to blame. Some people, it seems, just won't let you forget the Maine.'

https://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues98/feb98/maine.html

Then of course, there's the sordid history of American interventions in Central and South America, the benefactors being such liberal democratic minded folks such as:

Anastasio Somoza, Gen. Efrain Rios Montt, Gen. Pinochet, Joaquin Balaguer...

and a link to a site concerning that lovely old codger, Augusto. Wouldn't hurt a fly, would he?:

https://www.lakota.clara.net/index.html

[Fresno]

I 100% agree with you, Molly Bloom. Some aspects of American foreign policy of the last century are at best 'questionable'.

In my opinion, however, this isn't the reason why America shouldn't be included. Every mighty country did bad things. It is because America is so young I think they shouldn't be regarded as a civilization.

[Fresno]

double

[Trifna]

USA is in because its culture is distinct from others.

Don't say that every country start founding all a bunch of McDonalds and others. Or about freemarket, they are even unique. The culture is very different from others I think. No other reason of inclusion of USA for me, except if someone is able to demonstrate that USA isn't distinct enough from some other ingame culture and that USA could be within that culture.

[ranskaldan]

??!! Trifna, then why do you say in the other thread that the Koreans aren't sufficiently different from the Chinese?
(don't reply here. reply in that other thread.)

[jsw363]

Originally posted by cavebear
In 1800, "American" pretty much meant "English". In 1900, it pretty much meant "European". In 2001, it would take a genetics expert to hazard a guess. In 2001, "America" is the most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious nation in the World. "Americans" are now, after only a few hundred years, physically and culturally unique. I hasten to add, "unique" in the same way that most other Nations are.

I'm not so sure that the US is really the MOST multi-ethnic in the world. Countries in Africa, such as Tanzania which has 73 distinct ethnic groups, certainly have a plethora of ethnicities. I wonder about religion as well. If you look at India, you would find another country with a variety of ethnicities and an even greater number of religions with significant minorities. We only have to look north to the Canadians to see a country which coined the "salad bowl" and mosaic metaphors for describing thier countries. They are also multi-lingual, something which the US, sadly doesn't have. Switzerland too would challenge the US on that point.

In any case, yes the US is diverse, but I don't know if it's really developed a distinct culture from that of the European mainland. If you look around the countries of Europe there is tremendous difference among them, so I am not sure how the US has managed to distinguish itself from the rest of Western civilization. I say that the US still has enough cultural, linguistic and ethnic ties to the West that it isn't a distinct culture.

[Dauphin]

USA may not be around since a long time, it has a tremendous importance and it developed a culture of its own. Even if they are a mix-up of many others, they developed on their own too. The McDonald culture. The free market culture. The world police culture. Well, many things that make USA a distinctive case. And the whole of all this made their expansion succeed.

Free market culture is English/British. The whole concept of Laissez-faire was a central economic-political notion that the US has maintained.

Why it has a French name I don't know, probably just sounds better than a "Do nothing" policy.

Something a lifeguard told me

"Everybody loves you right after, you save their life. But give them a few months and you'd be surprised how they come to resent you. Doesn't surprise me. Which would you rather be? a lifeguard or a saved victim."

If I were saved by a lifeguard I would not resent the act of saving my life. I would be less than hospitable to him if every day, and at every opportunity he said "I saved your sorry ass that time you fell overboard".

Bottom line - I don't hear the Russians on this board shouting about how they destroyed Nazism.

[G' Stath]

Re: America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

Originally posted by Fresno
This isn't going to be a popular opinion, but I have to say it. It is ridiculous to found Washington in 4000 BC! In a regular game, it takes 250 turns before it's 1490 AD. So it takes nearly half of the game before you're in the years Columbus made his trip to the west! It takes more as 300 turns before America's independence. Americans are just the descendants of some Europeans and Africans. So why are the Americans included as an independent tribe? Just because the US is the most powerful nation in the world? Austria and Turkey also were large empires once, and so were more countries which haven't been included.

I don't agree. It's just a game. Neither greeks, romans existed 4000BC. It is not history. It is a history based strategy game. I think usa should be one of the civs.

G!