America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[Imran Siddiqui]

Many minority groups in America (unlike u) does not identify with the majority white Anglo-Saxons. They do not see themselves as Americans even though they live in the country.

How much do you know of America? Most people, of ANY background, who are citizens, consider themselves American!

America cannot be a civ exactly cos it consists of people from completely different cultures. AND those cultures have not fused enough to become a unique culture.

Again, I ask how much do you know of America? Jazz? Rock and Roll? The Blues? Southern food (fried chicken, etc)? All of these are unique to US cultrue.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Nemo
while the US was not the inventer of democracy by any means, we did successfully implement the theory, and have pushed for its expansion of it.

At what point do you class a democracy being implemented. The English civil war in the 17th century removed the monarchy and gave the power to elected representives in the House of Commons. Is this the birth of democracy?

The fact that who could vote was limited to land-owners is neither here nor there, when you consider that the US also maintained voting restrictions long after at its inception.

without the US and its democracy the world could hypothetically be communist now for all we know. (just a what if...not saying i believe or disbelieve it)

Big IF.

It smells of American arrogance to believe that. Sorry.

I won't deny the Americans were the major player in the anti-communist alliance, but even if they had lost the War of Independence, and the US territory remained British until independence (like Canada, Australia etc) I believe that Communism would still have been fended off.

aside: for all intense and purposes, i consider the US to be a republic, not a pure democracy

That would be intents and purposes.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


At what point do you class a democracy being implemented. The English civil war in the 17th century removed the monarchy and gave the power to elected representives in the House of Commons. Is this the birth of democracy?

The fact that who could vote was limited to land-owners is neither here nor there, when you consider that the US also maintained voting restrictions long after at its inception.

i do not know the first nation (if any nation) tha actually had/has a pure democracy. i do know that i have read books dating back to the late 1500's regarding its theory in poli sci classes, and of course there is the philosophers of ancient greece and rome that debated republic/democratic principles. i do not consider either the US or England after its civil war to be a democracy. both are republics.

without the US and its democracy the world could hypothetically be communist now for all we know. (just a what if...not saying i believe or disbelieve it)

Big IF.

It smells of American arrogance to believe that. Sorry.

Big IF...absolutly.
maybe, but if you consider some facts (which i am sure all have rebuttles) it might not be as much arrogance as you think, though. after WWII ended russia had free rein to conquer europe and an army of still 12 million. with the devistated continent, it would have been easy to incorperate a vast majority of it as a communist satilite. ok, so there goes europe.
now that hypothetcal aside, lets think of something else. vietnam/korea. i admit to not knowing much about them, so based on what i do know, is this: france was in vietnam prior to the US, they pulled out when we took over. we were able to hold off (while losing) long enough to keep communism from spreading south long enough while communism collapsed in russia. much of the korea/vietnam reasoning for entering was the "truman doctrine" which was to "uphold democracy" around the world which has come under much critisism over the years as the "world police doctrine" the truman doctrine is the what i was basing most of my thought (if i was actually thinking or not i am not quite sure ) on before.

I won't deny the Americans were the major player in the anti-communist alliance, but even if they had lost the War of Independence, and the US territory remained British until independence (like Canada, Australia etc) I believe that Communism would still have been fended off.

if the US was still British, then they would have recruited troops much earlier in the war, when Germany was still strong. also, the entire war would have been fought differently by the germans...i can think of a million arguements for both ways the war could have gone if this was the case, but wether germany would have won or lost in this case...then either facism or communism would be more prevolent in the world today.

That would be intents and purposes.

yes, that it would be...opps

dont take this the wrong way...i just like to read what other's perspectives are in comparison to mine.

[Dauphin]

i do not consider either the US or England after its civil war to be a democracy. both are republics

In practice I would agree. (England is of course a constitutional monarchy).

There often tends to be a belief that everything was invented in someones own country before anywhere else. Something all peoples are guilty of it.

People tend to have more knowledge of their own country and don't realise that other countries have "unknown histories". In the US many people think that WWII started in 1941. In Europe they know its 1939. Of course in China they would say 1933(?) with the Japanese invasions of Manchuria

I don't think you can make any realistic "what if" scenarios based on an action over 225 years ago. The outcome of the Russian October revolution had more influence on the advance of Communism. If the Russian coup d'etat failed there would have been no Cold war!

Heck, if a butterfly in the Amazon can cause a monsoon in India, think how different the world could be if it hadn't flapped its wings. (Oversimplification of chaos theory but hopefully you get my drift.)

[jdd2007]

people, people...
how can u not want americans. we have given u freedom, money, and McDonalds...what would life be without coke, the internet and SID MEIER *looks for a bowing smilie, grumbles*
its ur choice... we have given u all of the above (well maybe not freedom, but we saved europes ass in ww2 )

NOTE-this is the kind of post u laugh at, and then think about seriously...

[Dr. Nick]

All I can say to this is, what greatness has America achieved, what merits has it brought unto itself to deserve to be ranked next to Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Britain and China?

[Sun Zi 36]

I actually find it tedious to start this discussion again. Those who does not believe that the term "America" can only refer to a specific place on earth, not a specific group of people in a society sharing common culture, will never be convinced that it is.

All I can say to this is, what greatness has America achieved, what merits has it brought unto itself to deserve to be ranked next to Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Britain and China?

people, people...
how can u not want americans. we have given u freedom, money, and McDonalds...what would life be without coke, the internet and SID MEIER *looks for a bowing smilie, grumbles*

These two arguments are flawed in that they imply significant influence in history is all that which matters in whether to accept a group of people in the game. (there's another thread about this). If influence is all that which matters, wat stops u from saying that New Yorkers and Californians should be civs bcos surely they each achieved more than the Zulus or Iroquois. Wat i m arguing is the lack of uniqueness of the Americans, which i will elaborate below.

You are confusing civilization with cultural hegemony. By the logic of what you just said, Rome would not qualify as a civilization because it was made up of millions of different cultures that spanned the Mediterranean. Most of those people didn't consider themselves Romans, and in fact viewed themselves as subjugates of the Empire.

I m arguing exactly that culture defines civilsation. It seems that u do not understand the logic of my argument. Just bcos there are thousands of cultures within the Roman Empire doesn't mean the Romans or even those subjugates cannot be a civilisation. Again, culture define civilisations not political borders. Bcos most ppl in Americam, Canada, England and Australia still adhere to similar culture, they should all come under a civ of one title. Bcos the minorities in America, Canada, etc do not ahere to similar culture as the majority, they should not come under the same civ as the majority. And wat degree of similarity should be considered one culture? This is a matter of opinion that i would not elaborate. But one thing i m pretty definite: out of the 16 chosen by firaxis, the english and Americans are the two most similar in culture.

" How much do you know of America? Most people, of ANY background, who are citizens, consider themselves American!"

U just made a big unsubstantiated point with no positive contribution to your argument watsoever. I do not know your background, so i would not question your knowledge. But i know my background, and i can tell u, for all of my relatives and most of all the ppl i know who are in the same situation as me, they do not consider themselves practising the same culture as the majority of ppl in America. It is not a matter of whether they think they r American (as in part of the nation called America), it is a matter of culture, whether they adhere to similar culture as the majority of Americans. If they do indeed adhere to the same culture then they should indeed be considered as part of the civ, but that does not affect the argument that most people in America, Canada and England should come under a civ of one title bcos of their similar culture.

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
America may not be old, but here are only a few reasons why this game should have the United States as a civilization:

1) Firaxis is an American company;
2) They will probably sell more copies in the US than any other country in the world;
3) Althought the US isn't old, it can count itself as one of the most influencial nations to have ever existed.

I often hear 1) & 2), but is there any evidence that Americans prefer to play as Americans? I'm American and I rarely played the Americans -- usually Russians or Mongols. Regarding point 1), I don't think that really comes into play. Again, it gets back to the question of whether most Americans prefer to play as the Americans, and I don't know if that's case or not. Maybe that should be a poll?

Regarding the Kyoto treaty, don't forget that that was DOA; Dubya just had the cojones (or the stupidity) to state the obvious, to admit that the emperor had no clothes. The thing was rejected something like 95-0 in the Senate during the Clinton years, for crying out loud. It had no chance whatsoever, Dubya or not. Not to get political, but those are the facts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

U just made a big unsubstantiated point with no positive contribution to your argument watsoever. I do not know your background, so i would not question your knowledge. But i know my background, and i can tell u, for all of my relatives and most of all the ppl i know who are in the same situation as me, they do not consider themselves practising the same culture as the majority of ppl in America. It is not a matter of whether they think they r American (as in part of the nation called America), it is a matter of culture, whether they adhere to similar culture as the majority of Americans. If they do indeed adhere to the same culture then they should indeed be considered as part of the civ, but that does not affect the argument that most people in America, Canada and England should come under a civ of one title bcos of their similar culture.

You said before:

They do not see themselves as Americans even though they live in the country.

I see a bit of a contradiction.

And yes, minorities DO adhere to similar culture of majority of Americans. The culture of coke and rock & roll, of Microsoft and McDonalds. THAT is American culture, add to that the idea of cultural diversity that underscores it.

American culture is as distinct from English culture as English culture is distinct from French.

[Oligarf]

Realism vs. Just the Fun

The US would never be what they are now if they weren't a European colony. The history of the US is that of a former colony, you can't deny that. History wouldn't be the same the US not being a colony. But he, if you dislike the US as a player, don't allow them in a game.

No CIV will ever make it till eternity. Only the Humans as species maybe. I talked about some more realism in other threads. But with concern to this subject I would say, you don't know how long the US will 'run' this world. As others already commented, the Egyptians, Persians and so on, didn't make it. The Americans won't either.

'Build An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time', remember. Because that's the aim of the game, any civ that once lived on this planet should have it's chance. Those include the Americans.

BTW Therefor I wan't Dutch in the game as well.

[Sun Zi 36]

Imran Siddiqui:
wat is the contradiction? the two quotes u made r clearly about different issues. The first one is about whether minority adhere to majority culture in America, the second is whether the minority THINK THEY ARE part of the NATION called America. The second only contributes a little to the first and the first is the real issue.

"And yes, minorities DO adhere to similar culture of majority of Americans. The culture of coke and rock & roll, of Microsoft and McDonalds. THAT is American culture...

Seems to me that everyone here, inconsistent with the opinions expressed in the other poll about "significant influence", think that cultural achievements is all that which matters. does it happen only bcos the subject is America? Yes, coke and rock&roll and Microsoft etc ORIGINATED from America, but does it follow then that it is culture exclusively OF the Americans? Is the aspect of culture raised UNIQUE of the Americans? No it is not. Therefore u cannot define Americans as a civ bcos of those aspects of culture. Those are aspects of CULTURE (as opposed to cultural achievements) of a larger group of people. Wat i m arguing against America as a civ is, as u should all know by now, its UNIQUENESS.

"THAT is American culture, add to that the idea of cultural diversity that underscores it."

This point again implies the failure to understand that CULTURE DEFINES CIVILIZATION. its logic is still locked up in the cage of the idea that political borders and geographical terms define a civilization. This is indicated bcos the logic of the statement only holds when u remove the word "culture". Cultural diversity within a culture? How can A CULTURE, if defined properly, have a different cultures within it?

[Sun Zi 36]

Oligarf:
Again i m stressing that culture should define civilsation, not political units. An "Empire" could have many cultures within in. So can the people in many empires share a common culture. i agree that time is not relevant to whether civs should be in civ3.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jdd2007
we have given u the internet

What use is the internet if you didn't have the European inventions of the World Wide Web and computers?

[jdd2007]

What use is the internet if you didn't have the European inventions of the World Wide Web and computers?

well who gave u MICROSOFT, cable tv and du dududu du duuuu HOLLYWOOOOOOOD MOOOOVIEEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by jdd2007


well who gave u MICROSOFT, cable tv and du dududu du duuuu HOLLYWOOOOOOOD MOOOOVIEEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well what was the influence of the Americans on the Ancient Greece? On the Renaissance, everything before you became free.

Your turn!