America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Roadkill Quiche
The game itself offers one rational criterion for American inclusion -- the modern wonders. Hoover Dam, the Manhattan Project, and the Apollo Program are each major American achievements. Though most find it half-baked, the SETI Program is also American, and America was a major moving force behind the United Nations. While I doubt that there will ever be a single "Cure For Cancer" or "Longetivity in a Bottle," the human genome project (primarily American with minor European contribution) would likely provide the foundation for those wonders.

So, no America, no Modern Wonders -- unless you want to replace them with the Chunnel, the Euro, ABBA, or the 99% income tax.

Methinks you do protest too much. The Manhattan Project was an international effort, in response to an international threat- Szilard, Fermi, Teller and Bohr being Europeans, as were the British scientists working on the project. Canadian First Nations bands dug out uranium ore, the Belgian Congo supplied uranium, and so on and so on.

The Human Genome Project is also primarily an international effort, involving amongst others, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan...

One also wonders where the American Apollo program would be without German rocket science. Vorsprung durch technik....

Some modern wonders discovered in Europe, and elsewhere- the helical structure of DNA. First test tube baby- Louise Brown of the United Kingdom. Synthetic blood created by Japanese scientist Ryochi Naito. First artificial satellite and first man in space, and first woman, too, the Soviet Union. First spacewalk- A. Leonov...of the Soviet Union.
First pulsar discovered by Jocelyn Bell of Cambridge University.
1991, Jodrell Bank detects planetary mass the size of Jupiter in orbit around a star...
Television? European. Radio? European and Canadian. Jet engines? European. The motor car? European. The hovercraft? European. First tidal flow power station? European. Tape cassettes? European.

After a while, this kind of chauvinist bean counting gets to be a drag, especially when you consider how much scientists and science rely on earlier inventors and discoveries, of whatever nationality or place of birth- anyone for the concept of zero, from India via Islam to the West?

Algebra?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by oriel94
For those uninterested in discussing the question actually put in the thread's title, might I suggest starting another thread with a more accurate title. How about, 'The Americans should be excluded from Civ3 because of their youth, success and crassness'. I would still argue against it, but at least we would be in the correct thread.

You did notice, that I voted for the Americans, did you? Your own words are, it's just a game, right? Ancient times are fun with Babs and Romans and the Americans seem a bit ridiculous, in modern times the American's are a must and Babs and Romans are a laugh. Look at Hammu's picture in the modern age . The American warrior or spear chucker is just as funny as the Zulu AEGIS cruiser.

Anyway. And what concerns your polemical issue about all these "Modern American Wonders": If even they were pure American achievements, it was a nice Golden Age, but the 20 turns are over since the mid of the 90's. Definitely. Just like the European GA is over long long ago. Like it or not.

[Dauphin]

molly bloom.

Have you heard of "Not invented there" syndrome?

Many countries peoples believe they are the first to invent something, and if they are not - well sometimes they just invent something slightly different so they can claim the invention for themselves.

Its also perpetuated by knowledge of one's own countries/regions history more than anothers. History lessons will often put disproportionate focus on one's own countries acheivements and inventions - giving the impression that other countries did next to nothing.

For example, I know a lot about the social and economic history of Britain from 1707 to modern day due to schooling, but I know next to nothing about the social and economic history of Spain or France during the same period.

[satyajedi]

By the way, it seems somewhat unfair to give the Americans any credit at all for the United Nations since it was the American Senate's opposition to the League of Nations that, among other factors, caused the league of nations to fail.

But hey guys, at least it is better than in Call To Power when the "Emancipation Proclamation" Wonder forced other nations to abolish slavery or face a tough diplomatic and domestic penalty. That had to be the biggest example of pro-American idocy ever. I mean, America *was* the first to abolish slavery, right? Oh wait, except for France. And Britain. And Germany (Germanic states) and Russia and Italy and pretty much every other nation in Europe. But man, once Lincoln signed the proclamation, the diplomatic pressure was really on Spain, let me tell you.

-Satya

[Dauphin]

Devil's advocate

Originally posted by satyajedi
By the way, it seems somewhat unfair to give the Americans any credit at all for the United Nations since it was the American Senate's opposition to the League of Nations that, among other factors, caused the league of nations to fail.

Doesn't that mean that the Americans effectively "made" the UN?

That is, with America it succeeds, without it fails.

[Harovan]

Re: Devil's advocate

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
That is, with America it succeeds, without it fails.

Reminds me many failed UN resolutions. All countries "pro", one "contra" (US veto) and the whole thing is denied. I think, the USA should first pay their debts to the UN, before they use a veto again.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
molly bloom.

Have you heard of "Not invented there" syndrome?

Many countries peoples believe they are the first to invent something, and if they are not - well sometimes they just invent something slightly different so they can claim the invention for themselves.

Clearly, but some of the posters here have not- the notion that the Manhattan Project was an all-american affair is simply incorrect; I am not proselytising for some Eurocentric viewpoint, hence the reference to the transmission of the concept of zero, from India, via Islam, to Western Europe. Algebra,algorithms, gunpowder, paper- there are plenty of non-Western inventions and advances that get omitted, or 'unreferenced', as though the West or Europe or America were the 'fons et origo' of all scientific advancement. They ain't; they weren't; they won't be.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Clearly, but some of the posters here have not- the notion that the Manhattan Project was an all-american affair is simply incorrect; I am not proselytising for some Eurocentric viewpoint .

I didn't think you were, I was just trying explain the cause of the common misconception.

[Oligarf]

Re: Devil's advocate

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Doesn't that mean that the Americans effectively "made" the UN?
That is, with America it succeeds, without it fails.

And what is your statement with this? No country is perfect, but the power that America has, isn't used the way it should. Take the IMF for example, America forces poor countries to open their borders for American products. America ruins the global economy for their own goals. So I don't think this is an argument to keep them in.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oligarf
And what is your statement with this? No country is perfect, but the power that America has, isn't used the way it should. Take the IMF for example, America forces poor countries to open their borders for American products. America ruins the global economy for their own goals. So I don't think this is an argument to keep them in.

The original point I was answering was "the UN should not be credited to the US". My point was that the UN owes its ability to function to the US. You yourself have just said you beleive the US controls the UN for nefarious purposes.

Either way, the UN is *here because of/controlled by* the US. So should it not be partially credited to the US?

[Oligarf]

Sorry but that looks somewhat like saying the Jews got a home in Israel thanks to Hitler. Can't deny that, but to thank him for that, NO. The same for the US in the UN, there is no single reason to thank the US for the UN. As said, they ruined a same idea before the UN was founded.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oligarf
Sorry but that looks somewhat like saying the Jews got a home in Israel thanks to Hitler. Can't deny that, but to thank him for that, NO.

The situations are not the same and you know it.

The same for the US in the UN, there is no single reason to thank the US for the UN.

Would the UN exist without the US? I personally doubt it.

As said, they ruined a same idea before the UN was founded.

So you are saying that America has ruined the United Nations by its actions, and ruined the League of Nations by its non-membership?

There are problems with the US, it doesn't believe in a partnership where it is not the senior of the partner, it uses its power to exert authority etc... but despite the ills I still think the US has given more to the UN over the years than most countries.

If you can provide evidence (such as funds to the UN, troops provided to the UN etc) showing that other countries have done more for the UN than the US, please provide it, so that you may change my opinion.

[squeeze truck]

I want to play too!

The problem here, it seems to me, is that people don't know how to distinguish a civilization from a nation-state.
America, England, France, and Germany are nations, not civilizations.

Think about it. Egypt, China, India, Greece, the Iriquois, the Zulu and the Aztecs all started from being pre-agricultural hunter/gatherer societies and grew into great empires with absolutely no outside help. (Some, of course, were greater than others...)

Persia and Babylon imitated Egypt, and Rome imitated Greece, but they developed independantly after that and could be called civilizations as well.

There is a European civilization, (sometimes called "Gothic" civilization), that developed after Rome collapsed. England, France and Germany are part of this civilization. They all have a common history, common ethnicity, common religion, and have developed along the same timeline (i.e., all converted to Christianity roughly together, all had their Renaissance and Enlightenment periods together, etc.)

America broke off from the English branch of Gothic civilization when England was close to the height of it's empire, and essentially hit the ground running. America never had to develop written language, religion, a legal system, a social order, a military system or anything -- they used the ones developed and perfected in Europe.
American wonders and achievements are further achievements of the 1000-year old Gothic civilization.

It is not at all unusual for one civilization to have many nations and languages. China recognizes over 50 dialects of chinese, and currently exists as 2 nation states (PRC, and Taiwan.) Indian civilization has just as many languages and exists as many more states (India, Bengaladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Pakistan.)

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Would the UN exist without the US? I personally doubt it.

Even if the US is responsible for the UN, who cares? What's so great about the UN?

The Allied powers created the UN after WWII by themselves, and made sure that they would stay in control of it. An extention of post-war empire is all it is, and there have been a hundred post-war treaties just like it.

UN resolution 242 is a perfect example. The UN "voted" to take a piece of land owned by one ethnic group, and give it to another ethnic group and called it Israel.

Do you think that the people who lived there or around there got to go to the wonderful UN and vote on that decision? Don't count on it.

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
There was a vested interest. I doubt the US would like to have woken up one day in the late 1940s to find a superpower Nazi Europe and a superpower Japanese dictatorship throughout Asia and the Pacific. America would probably enter the war at some point even if not directly attacked, out of necessity of stopping such a situation.

It might be worth remembering that if the Americans had not entered the war until a few years later (say 1944), they would have bombing raids and V3s raining down on Washington and New York in 1946.

That is false. Hitler lost WWII during the Russian campaign. (He was a better orator than strategist.) The the Americans and Brittish had an easy time landing at Normandy because Germany didn't have much left to send West.

However, even without Russia, Germany's "empire" was spread so thin and managed so poorly, even if they could have gotten off the continent I don't believe the "1000-year-reich" would have lasted more than 10 years. Armor is good for taking territory, but not very good at holding it.