America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[KrazyHorse]

Nope. I just have come to the conclusion that despite whatever "morals" I make up for myself, I think I would be capable of mass murder if sufficiently motivated (don't worry; personal gain probably wouldn't be part of it), and I think this might class me as a sociopath. Oh well.

See you in your sleep, GP...

p.s.: I also think that I'd make a damn fine dictator, and that worries me sometimes.

[oriel94]

Hi guys, this is my first post to Aployton.

This Aussie thinks the Americans should be a civ in Civ3 because:

a) They (or some of them) invented the game - which is fairly civilized in itself;

b) They (Al Gore not included) invented the internet;

c) They are the least taxed, most self-governing, and most free country in the world;

d) They are almost the only country in the world not trying to socialise themselves to death;

e) The gave us "The Simpsons".

Although they are essentially an off-shoot of European/West European/Anglo-Celtic civilization, they have since 1607 (the English colony at Jamestown) acquired sufficient distinguishing characteristics to warrant recognition as a separate but closely related civilization.

America plays Rome to Britain's Greece. That is, the Americans adopted, absorbed and adapted Britain's cultural and political greatness, and then projected that greatness onto the global stage after Britain's relative decline. France, Spain et al had no similarly potent offspring.

The Americans sometimes irritate me, in the same way that my over-achieving brother sometimes irritates me. But I still want him in the family.

My only gripe is that Civ3 appears to lump the Americans into the same cultural group as the Aztecs and the Iroquois. That just seems bizarre. I hope the editor will allow me to fix that and to switch their cultural affinity to European.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by oriel94
The Americans sometimes irritate me, in the same way that my over-achieving brother sometimes irritates me. But I still want him in the family....

.. a particularly boastful, over-achieving brother, who has started to believe his own propaganda...

hmmm...that's probably being a little harsh

Seriously though, I may not agree with his exact statements, but I think Oriel has a good point in essence. Basically the American Nation is the powerhouse of the current time, although there has been some argument regarding Culture vs Nation, what is important is what the players can relate to.
I don't mean just American players - I can't relate to Anglosaxon or Hispanic ...Give me French, German, English, American any day

[Fresno]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I also think that I'd make a damn fine dictator, and that worries me sometimes.

Did you ever play Tropico, KrazyHorse? If you didn't, try www.poptop.com.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by oriel94
America plays Rome to Britain's Greece. That is, the Americans adopted, absorbed and adapted Britain's cultural and political greatness, and then projected that greatness onto the global stage after Britain's relative decline.

I love that analogy. Great post, Oriel.

[oriel94]

Drake,

I wish I could claim credit for it. But the idea was Harold Macmillan's, British Prime Minister 1957-1963.

[Grandpa Troll]

I am darn proud to be an AMERICAN and as part of the GREATEST NATION on God's Earth, I speak out of experience as a 42 year old Male, that we EARNED the right to be here, seeing how we take in castaways,dregs, and the desperate-to-be-free of the World!

Who anti's up the most in a World conflict involving NATO?..America the Beautiful does, not solely, but more shares are antied up, I know, I have been there being an Army Vet.

THAT AND THE FACT we built and marketed the wonderfully entertaining CIVIII..thats my $0.02 worth.

As my Uncle Walter Cronkite sez..."And that's the way it is...."


In Jesus Name

Brother Bruce

[oriel94]

ummm, .... I'm still pro-American, and still think America should be a 'civ', even after reading Troll's contribution.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by oriel94
ummm, .... I'm still pro-American, and still think America should be a 'civ', even after reading Troll's contribution.

Another great post. I just hope, for your sake, that a British PM didn't say it first....

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by oriel94
ummm, .... I'm still pro-American, and still think America should be a 'civ', even after reading Troll's contribution.

So I touched a nerve ..eh???..so sorry..I am sure you feel Australia is the best country on earth..as in deed you should..being from Australia..so 4-give me if I stepped on yer toes..or anything else..ok?..I am just Proud 2 B an AMERICAN..and dont mind sharing that view..and I didn't lie..or bash..or attack anyone with anything I said..only stated what is FACT..and HISTORY..so I am simply [?????????] P-U-Z-Z-L-E-D why you would be finding my post contrary????



In Jesus Name

Brother Bruce

[oriel94]

Not contrary at all.

There is a cultural-civilizational bloc which consists of the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (about 415 million people). It doesn't have a name, but I call it the 'Anglosphere' for want of a better one. It is the zone in which thrives (i) the English language, (ii) English-derived values of political democracy and economic freedom, and (iii) instinctive rejection of extremism. It is an extension of European civilization, but much more attached to freedom and moderation than the rest of European civilization which has too frequently succumbed to fascism, communism, violent nationalism and various strands of socialism.

This moderation is not cowardice. It is very slow to anger but terrible, and unbeatable, once aroused.

Sir Winston Churchill was probably the single greatest figure in the history of the Anglosphere, but there is a lot of strong competition for that title. He was Britain's greatest PM, but had an American mother and was equally at home on both sides of the Atlantic. He embodied all of the Anglosphere's strengths and weaknesses. He believed in the Anglosphere's essential unity, and wrote the massive and moving "History of the English Speaking People".

Winston would have offered Troll a big fat cigar and a double scotch, before slapping him on the back and asking his advice on ‘how to tackle those bounders in Afghanistan’. And he would have listened and taken notes, and factored it all in. He had style.
And more importantly, he had substance. We need his kind again, and we have a habit of producing it when needed.

[aaglo]

IMHO, age has nothing to do with the qualification for the game....

[Sun Zi 36]

I left this thread like a month ago and was shocked that this post is still here. Don't get it wrong though, wasnt surprised bcos of the length of the discussion. I was shocked that ppl could still talk about the same thing and argue over it for a month when it wasn't even the real issue. The question is about civilisation, not nation.

I accept with all my good faith that America is the greatest NATION. Whether you want to describe it as greatest, holiest, best, godly watever i don't care. That's not even the issue. Please, someone tell me, what's that got to do with the term civilisation?

Civilisation is defined by culture, not political borders. That's why the borders in civ3 expands as culture expands. People who share similar cultural aspects will be classified to be in the same cultural group and thus the same civilisation. This means a culture have to be substantially UNIQUE to be classified as a different civilisation. And this is where the real issue lies. Whether there is a unique culture in America that is not shared by other parts of the world. You may like to read my previous posts for my opinion on it.

What 90% of u are arguing here is NOT even the achievements of the civ or the greatness of the CULTURE, which in my opinion comes after u defined the civ. Many of u are arguing about achievements of the NATION, which is a completely different thing.

By what u people are arguing, i could say that people in California and people in New York each deserves to be in as a civ, bcos they each are more important than the Zulus and the Aztecs.

This comes down to an argument made by oriel94:

America plays Rome to Britain's Greece. That is, the Americans adopted, absorbed and adapted Britain's cultural and political greatness, and then projected that greatness onto the global stage after Britain's relative decline.

I disagree with this statement. One, because there's more difference between Rome and Greece than between Britain and America. Two, the fact is that Britain's decline is too recent for the majority Americans to transform much of their culture to be different from Britain. Three, Ancient Greek culture virtually vanished in Greece but not for Britain, which means America and Britain can continue to influence each other and remain as the same cultural group.

[Sun Zi 36]

"There is a cultural-civilizational bloc which consists of the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (about 415 million people). It doesn't have a name, but I call it the 'Anglosphere' for want of a better one. It is the zone in which thrives (i) the English language, (ii) English-derived values of political democracy and economic freedom, and (iii) instinctive rejection of extremism. It is an extension of European civilization, but much more attached to freedom and moderation than the rest of European civilization which has too frequently succumbed to fascism, communism, violent nationalism and various strands of socialism."

I agree with u on this one. But how about just calling it conservative? And dont forget McCarthyism is quite extreme nationalism too.

The fact that u think the "Anglosphere" is a cultural-civilisational bloc already means that they should be considered as one civilisation, not two. I prefer to call it Anglo-Saxon which is the most common.

[oriel94]

In reply to Sun Zi, one big point and two much smaller ones:

I accept, for the most part, Sun Zi's commentary on my posts. He is right about the relative strengths and influences of the US and British branches of the Anglosphere. The Greece-Rome metaphor was just that, a metaphor intended to make a colourful illustration. On Sun Zi's more accurate account Britain remains in a much better position to influence its civilizational partner than Greece was. (But the Americans still have a problem with spotting irony).

One relatively minor point of difference. I think that equating 'McCartyhyism' with the truly profound and far-reaching ideological disorders of continental Europe is a very substantial exaggeration. That the antics of Senator McCarthy can seem so shocking to us in the Anglosphere simply demonstrates how different and more moderate/conservative our standards are from the related civilization/s of continental Europe. Be it also recalled that Senator McCarthy's ludicrous campaign collapsed under the weight of its own absurdities precisely because it crossed the boundary into hysteria in a cultural climate where extremism has little oxygen. Similarly Britain and the US have occasionally been rocked by political and economic scandals which, if they had occurred in Europe, would hardly raise an eyebrow.

An even more minor point. I call it the Anglosphere because it's more accurate. It simply signifies those countries where English is spoken and whose civilizational/cultural values are closely *derived* from the Anglo-Saxon world. To suggest that USA-England-Scotland-Wales-Canada-Australia-New Zealand (and maybe Ireland??) are an undifferentiated Anglo-Saxon unity is stretching things. I concede, however, that 'Anglosphere' sounds odd. I just can't think of a better, and short, handle. Maybe Churchill's 'The English Speaking Peoples' would be better, but it's a bit cumbersome. 'The Empire' might also work, but it sounds antiquated and the US actually fought a war to leave it.

I agree that the Americans and the English/British in Civ3 would have been more accurately rendered as a 'single civilization'. But would that have made for a more enjoyable game? I think not.