E Pluribus. Unum

[LoD]

Oh please, another "post-11.IX.2001" American nationalist. Mods, please close this thread ...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by dexters

To address some of your rebuttals, I never made any claim that the "old world" was entirely homogenous. I mentioned specifically select Western European countries that a ****** will recognize is a very white, where most of these countries have white populations in the high 90 percent range. Even your "best case" UK only has a visible minority population of 2.5%. And quite frankly, I have statistics to back me up. Whereas your rebuttals are based on your own experiences? Experiences are advantageous in many areas, but not in the area of substituting hard statistical analysis. It is our biases that often color our judgement on which group is more numerous as we selectively remember what we want to remember.

How very unfortunate that you choose not to quote where your statistics come from, what the statistics mean, and define the terms included in those statistics: as I pointed out to nationalist, black and English, black and Scottish and black and Welsh and black and Irish are not mutually exclusive terms.

'who live in the old world with their little homogenous societies of all asians, all whities, all blackies will never grasp. '

Oh, gee dexters, this ****** can't quite see which specific old world societies you're referring to there- can you point out which ones you mean, with your statistical analysis of the population breakdown by race/ethnicity? Preferably with reference to the censuses carried out out in those countries- I think we might allow that the national census of each country is going to be more reliable than the C.I.A.'s website. We are talking about the intelligence operation that mistook the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade for a Serb target and one of whose officers believed that Tibet was near Hungary....

You see, you accuse me of showing bias, and yet you kick off this thread with a series of assumptions, based on your limited experience (a trip to London) and some unsourced, vague statistics. You proceed to make claims, such as that the U.S.A. was the republican democratic example for the world to follow- I point out that the world (presumably you meant Western Europe) already had several examples, the English Republican Commonwealth, The Dutch Republic of the United Provinces, the Republic of Iceland, San Marino, as well as a wealth of classical sources, such as Republican Rome, the city states of Greece and Asia Minor. Then you change the goalposts, and say they weren't big enough, and anyway, Cromwell ended up as a tyrant. Irrelevant to the argument at hand, I'm afraid. The point was, if Europe needed examples of republics they already had them :

'When The American Republic was established, the entire world was ruled by Monarchs. The idea of a Republic, although not a new idea, was a radical one in the 1700s, '

so radical, the idea had been around since the 1600s, and before-

encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/0B/00B58000.htm?z=1&pg=2&br=1

And of course, the United Provinces and San Marino and Iceland went on not being ruled by monarchs, as did many Native American territories...still, when the facts don't suit you, you can always change the goal posts again, can't you?

Your hard statistical analysis doesn't stand up to a moment's examining:

'We do A recent poll showed 80% of Canadians wouldn't mind joining the United States. '

Which poll? You never did answer.....

[dexters]

Originally posted by molly bloom


How very unfortunate that you choose not to quote where your statistics come from, what the statistics mean, and define the terms included in those statistics: as I pointed out to nationalist, black and English, black and Scottish and black and Welsh and black and Irish are not mutually exclusive terms.

black English would be classified as people of mixed decent. The statistics on the CIA World factbook vary from country to country depending on how each country collect data. Considering there is no separation in the UK Ethnicity statistics for people of mixed ethnicity, it does have a category called West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other which will likely include smaller minority groups and will likely include people of mixed descent. And that entire grouping of people, according to UK's own numbers, it 2.8% of the total population.

Furthermore, most governments collect based on Ethnicity not nationality, which nullifies much of the ambiguity between an African who thinks he is English as he would simply be counted as an African or a black person. In fact, most government figures do not attempt to measure what people think they are, and simply measure in terms of race and ethnicity. This makes much of the debate about nationality moot.

'who live in the old world with their little homogenous societies of all asians, all whities, all blackies will never grasp. '

Oh, gee dexters, this ****** can't quite see which specific old world societies you're referring to there- can you point out which ones you mean, with your statistical analysis of the population breakdown by race/ethnicity? Preferably with reference to the censuses carried out out in those countries- I think we might allow that the national census of each country is going to be more reliable than the C.I.A.'s website. We are talking about the intelligence operation that mistook the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade for a Serb target and one of whose officers believed that Tibet was near Hungary....

If you have a quarrel with the CIA, you'd be glad to know that for the information in their world factbooks are taken from statistics and information released by the country in question. One should note that there are various footnotes on many of the statistics presented indicating the figures are either erroneous or are intentionally innacurate, as with the reported military Spending of the PROC. I think you should find yourself in quite a bind here as refuting these facts you refuse the countries who compiled the numbers themselves.

And as for your rather tasteless jab at the CIA for Bombing the Chinese embassy, its not really for this thread so I defer the matter for a future thread. , although it should be noted certain members of the American intelligence community have hinted the bombing may infact not have been a mistake but a calculated target to disrupt Chinese intelligence operatives who may have been aiding the Serbs on how to detect stealth aircraft and potential operations with gathering intelligence on American military hardware. Regardless, its not news to anyone that embassies are hotbeds for spies with false diplomatic credentials.
Certainly, its not the job of the CIA or any intelligence agency to advertises its successes, so I would certainly write-off any attempt to criticize intelligence agencies based on "news items" the intelligence agency in question may have manufactured themselves as a cover story.
But like I said, its not for this thread.

You see, you accuse me of showing bias, and yet you kick off this thread with a series of assumptions, based on your limited experience (a trip to London) and some unsourced, vague statistics. You proceed to make claims, such as that the U.S.A. was the republican democratic example for the world to follow- I point out that the world (presumably you meant Western Europe) already had several examples, the English Republican Commonwealth, The Dutch Republic of the United Provinces, the Republic of Iceland, San Marino, as well as a wealth of classical sources, such as Republican Rome, the city states of Greece and Asia Minor. Then you change the goalposts, and say they weren't big enough, and anyway, Cromwell ended up as a tyrant. Irrelevant to the argument at hand, I'm afraid. The point was, if Europe needed examples of republics they already had them :

This is part of a discussion that happened over a week ago. I responded to your rebuttal by simply, and effectively saying most historians have no quarrel with the fact that a democratic republic is possible even before the Americans came along. But before the Americans came along, the best examples of a sustainable republican democracies (not Cromwell's Flash in the pan, despotic failed republic you pointed out) had been small scale democracies. And in fact, many of the classical writers looked to the Athenian model. The American Republic in both its geographic size and the scope of the population proved a LARGE democractic Republic was feasable, and has continued to up to ante as its population has multiplied a thousand fold in its 200 odd years as a Republic. This held until larger scale democracies like India, with its 1 billion strong population became a Democracy and exists today as the world's largest democracy.

The irony of course was the founders of the American Republic looked to Athens and Rome, and was well versed in classical thinking as they attempted many of the political theories discussed but not implemented in Europe. Including the system of checks and balances that have come to define the Federal system of the United States government. Of course, that's not to take anything away from Europe. America borrowed liberally from the contemporary Europe of its time, including keeping much of the English codes of law, the parliament was altered to reflect the classical leanings of the founders into a Senate, the upper house (like the house of lords), and the house of representatives (the members of parliament). But at no time did I make the point that the United States somehow created out of nothing this great nation.

What the country has done is created a great civilization out of discarded and radical European ideas the monarchs in Europe would rather not touch and along the way, the set the bar on many things, including the aforementioned formation of a large Republic that until then was thought to be an unstable and risky proposition and many in Europe openly questioned its feasability, especially in the immediate aftermath of the revolution and America was essentially a bankrupted nation, with a weak tax system and thirteen colonies threatening to go their separate ways. The cohesion that occured, in between those shaky early days of the Republic, and the great Republic that it is today proved more than anything that America is a distinct entity , and thus answers directly, many of the whining from members of this board, many of whom live in homogenous all white countries, that because Americans are people from all over the world, they have NO distinct culture and thus cannot be classified as a civ in Civ III. That's been the whole thrust of my unhappiness with some of the posters here and has been the catalyst of starting this thread.

so radical, the idea had been around since the 1600s, and before-

encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/0B/00B58000.htm?z=1&pg=2&br=1

And of course, the United Provinces and San Marino and Iceland went on not being ruled by monarchs, as did many Native American territories...still, when the facts don't suit you, you can always change the goal posts again, can't you?

Unlike Al Gore, I don't claim to invent the Internet and I don't claim America invented Democracy either. Unless you fail to understand what I say, or choose to take what I say out of context so you'll have one more point to rebutt, then I feel truly sorry. But All I've said all along is America set a major presedence with its Revolution not only by showing the way to many disgruntled colonies in the Americas to begin their own Revolution but also by showing a large scale democracy is possible.

Your hard statistical analysis doesn't stand up to a moment's examining:

'We do A recent poll showed 80% of Canadians wouldn't mind joining the United States. '

Which poll? You never did answer.....

I have a very reliable source in the CIA World Factbook, compiled from the own statistics of governments the world over and used by most major governmental departments in the US. I'm sure there is a more comprehensive set of facts that is not avaialable to the public.

Your attempt to make a correlation between the factbook being a CIA and thus an American creation and bias is wholelly unfounded, not only is it pure conjecture, you've certainly shot yourself in the foot as the facts you claim are innacurate is in fact the facts local governments make public through their various governmental agencies. THe CIA, unlike most of your opinionated links, do not make moral, editorial judgements, they only collects these information and make commentaries on the reliablity of the information when neccessary.

As for my comment with regards to ovver 80% of the Canadian, when polled wanted to join the US, it was a segment in the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and the poll was done either by Ipsos Ried , the Canadian polling company or by CBC, or one of the news outlets, likely Macleans Magazine http://www.macleans.ca/

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by LoD
Oh please, another "post-11.IX.2001" American nationalist. Mods, please close this thread ...

BUAHAHAHAHAHA.

Take a look down the Civilizations forum...

'Remove America From Game'

'Does America Belong in Civ 3?'

-INSERT AMERICA BASHING THREAD HERE-

Huh? Where's those damn American nationalists?

Come back after you have some facts, troll.

[KrazyHorse]

If you have a quarrel with the CIA, you'd be glad to know that for the information in their world factbooks are taken from statistics and information released by the country in question

That factbook also claims that the US has a larger land area than China, a blatant lie.

[molly bloom]

C.I.A. infallibility- it's almost as good as Papal infallibility:

www.ilsr.org/columns/052099.html :

'Sometimes the Agency's level of ineptitude is simply laughable. The 1998 CIA World Factbook, for example, informed us that the United Kingdom gained its independence on January 1, 1801. The correct date was a wee bit earlier--1087 to be exact. The Factbook also notified an astonished world that listens regularly to the BBC World Service that Britain has no shortwave broadcast stations.
When London's Daily Telegraph inquired about the misinformation the CIA blithely responded, "We never comment on intelligence matters, or lack of intelligence matters." '

Oh but it must be true! The C.I.A. use the statistics of the country in question!

Which must be why William Hague is still leader of the Conservative Party then? Except he isn't. It's Iain Duncan Smith.

'Considering there is no separation in the UK Ethnicity statistics for people of mixed ethnicity, it does have a category called West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other which will likely include smaller minority groups and will likely include people of mixed descent. '

'Which will likely'...'which will likely'... in other words, you don't know, you're simply asserting it to be the case.

'Furthermore, most governments collect based on Ethnicity not nationality'

Another assertion. Not backed up by any facts, hard or otherwise.

'and thus answers directly, many of the whining from members of this board, many of whom live in homogenous all white countries, that because Americans are people from all over the world, they have NO distinct culture '

Which homogenous all-white countries? We still don't have that elusive list you keep promising us.

'As for my comment with regards to ovver 80% of the Canadian, when polled wanted to join the US, it was a segment in the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and the poll was done either by Ipsos Ried , the Canadian polling company or by CBC, or one of the news outlets, likely Macleans Magazine http://www.macleans.ca/'

But what were the parameters of the poll? Who were the people questioned? 'Oh, it was done either by this one, or the other one, or another one....'

mmmm....that's very definite then, is it?

'Mexico's population is 101 million, but in recent years, it has been classified more as a central American country than a North American country. '

Exactly who has classified it more as a Central American country? The C.I.A. ? Your uncle? The man who lives two doors down from you?

'Central America, region of the western hemisphere, made up of a long, tapering isthmus that forms a bridge between North and South America. Central America, which is defined by geographers as part of North America, has an area of about 521,500 sq km (about 201,300 sq mi) and includes the countries of Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. The region has a population of approximately 36.4 million (2000 estimate).'

https://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/namerica/ctrmaps/ctrmap.htm

encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?ti=05A0D000

Now you see that conspicuously blank bit to the north of Central America? - that's Mexico.

'The problem of course all the examples presented above were small scale democracies. It has been long thought that Democracies in the scale of city states as exemplified by Athens would work, but would not work in a large scale. This is why Most historians have discounted small scale democracies (post-Athens) in Europe and elsewhere as they were all consistent with the traditional belief that small scale democracies work. America was the exception.
Oh yes, and America did show the way. '

The problem of course, is that it doesn't suit your biased view of world history to acknowledge that the idea of a republic and a European republic already existed. Small scale? The English Commonwealth, the Venetian Republic, Iceland, The United Provinces, the Swiss Cantonal Federation, scale has nothing to do with it. We were talking about first principles. Now to the 'most historians' part. Which ones? I'd like to see some of these historians quoted.
America showed the way....leading from the rear, chronologically, I imagine.

[dexters]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That factbook also claims that the US has a larger land area than China, a blatant lie.

Not really. US Hawaiin islands have an ever expanding area and like all data, it is what you include that makes all the difference. US has various island possesions in the Pacific, the American Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, all of which are not technically American states but are American possesions, or under American protection. Some of which, like Puerto Rice, even have representatives in the US Congress

Here's some facts from a third party source.

http://www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/find.htm

China's Land Area:
Land Area 9,326,410 sq km (3,600,927 sq miles)

USA Land Area
(50 states) 9,158,918 sq km (3,536,278 sq miles)
(48 states) 8,588,712 sq km (3,316,118 sq miles) <--excluding Hawaii and Alaska

Clearly, at 50 states, the US is only 64 odd square miles less than China's size. Add in the pacific and latin American possesions and it will have a larger size than China.

But it's all moot. Arguing over trivial facts, and two countries that are for measurement's sake identical in size is an amusing distraction at most but certainly shows how much you want to poke holes at stuff that needen't any poking.

Just stick with the discussion bud.

[dexters]

Originally posted by molly bloom
C.I.A. infallibility- it's almost as good as Papal infallibility:

www.ilsr.org/columns/052099.html :

'Sometimes the Agency's level of ineptitude is simply laughable. The 1998 CIA World Factbook, for example, informed us that the United Kingdom gained its independence on January 1, 1801. The correct date was a wee bit earlier--1087 to be exact. The Factbook also notified an astonished world that listens regularly to the BBC World Service that Britain has no shortwave broadcast stations.
When London's Daily Telegraph inquired about the misinformation the CIA blithely responded, "We never comment on intelligence matters, or lack of intelligence matters." '

Right... More opinion peices. Molly, if you can give me some hard facts and not opinions (of which there are plenty for all types of fetishes and walks of life) then perhaps I'll take you seriously.

As I've said, if you wish to challenge the facts in this particular case, the CIA World Factbook, you'll have to take it with the individual goverments as they are the ones who make these facts public. The CIA, for this public edition of the factbook, simply amalgates this information.

Oh but it must be true! The C.I.A. use the statistics of the country in question!

so... you're calling the entire world liars? I'm sure your friends over at the Australian government or the UK government would be very happy to hear you trash their statistics, just because it is presented by an American agency.

Which must be why William Hague is still leader of the Conservative Party then? Except he isn't. It's Iain Duncan Smith.

And your ineptitude and rush to judgement begins to show. This is the public version of the CIA World Factbook and thus, the 2001 public edition actually contains somewhat dated information, many of which are denoted by brackets noting the year. ie: (1999)

'Considering there is no separation in the UK Ethnicity statistics for people of mixed ethnicity, it does have a category called West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other which will likely include smaller minority groups and will likely include people of mixed descent. '

'Which will likely'...'which will likely'... in other words, you don't know, you're simply asserting it to be the case.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it is a duck. So... just because there is no "category" for people of mixed descent, they must magically be English or Welsh even if they have black, Egyptian, chinese blood in them? Clearly, any rational human will place this category where it makes the most sense, under "other"

'Furthermore, most governments collect based on Ethnicity not nationality'
Another assertion. Not backed up by any facts, hard or otherwise.

How about another ebutall not backed by anything thinking? The UK statistics we've been talking about clearly breaks it down based on ethnicity, or are you blind?

'and thus answers directly, many of the whining from members of this board, many of whom live in homogenous all white countries, that because Americans are people from all over the world, they have NO distinct culture '

Which homogenous all-white countries? We still don't have that elusive list you keep promising us.

How about Western Europe for you to start? Maybe even the racist anti-immigrant country called Australia.

'As for my comment with regards to ovver 80% of the Canadian, when polled wanted to join the US, it was a segment in the CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and the poll was done either by Ipsos Ried , the Canadian polling company or by CBC, or one of the news outlets, likely Macleans Magazine http://www.macleans.ca/'

But what were the parameters of the poll? Who were the people questioned? 'Oh, it was done either by this one, or the other one, or another one....'

That was from another discussion and I merely mentioned it in passing. But you're right, the question of the poll is not clear to me, so I simply let the nugget of trivia to live or die by itself. There was no attempt to prop it up to constrew more meaning that its supposed to mean. Why would would throw it into this discussion is beyond me. Out of spite perhaps?

mmmm....that's very definite then, is it?

'Mexico's population is 101 million, but in recent years, it has been classified more as a central American country than a North American country. '

Exactly who has classified it more as a Central American country? The C.I.A. ? Your uncle? The man who lives two doors down from you?

How about the business community and various politicans which prefer to classify Mexico as a central American country. It's really a moot point of course. We're just throwing the same numbers in different boxes, but if you insist, we can live happily ever after and include it under North America, they are under NAFTA after all. But of course, that doesn't change much as the comment regarding the population in Americas was a rough Estimate I made in my head, which I clearly stated when asked how accurate the numbers was. I even went so far as provided a link for people to do the match themselves. I don't hide behind opinion peices and conjecture lwhen facts clearly contradict their opinions.

'The problem of course all the examples presented above were small scale democracies. It has been long thought that Democracies in the scale of city states as exemplified by Athens would work, but would not work in a large scale. This is why Most historians have discounted small scale democracies (post-Athens) in Europe and elsewhere as they were all consistent with the traditional belief that small scale democracies work. America was the exception.
Oh yes, and America did show the way. '

The problem of course, is that it doesn't suit your biased view of world history to acknowledge that the idea of a republic and a European republic already existed. Small scale? The English Commonwealth, the Venetian Republic, Iceland, The United Provinces, the Swiss Cantonal Federation, scale has nothing to do with it. We were talking about first principles. Now to the 'most historians' part. Which ones? I'd like to see some of these historians quoted.
America showed the way....leading from the rear, chronologically, I imagine.

Well... all very good.
Venetian Republic 1770–1850, nice! 80 years. And a Republic based on a city state. That's certainly a large scale republic.

Iceland, how many people live there?

England's failed attempt at a Republic under Cromwell's short reign?

Swiss Cantonal Federation? Here's what the Swiss say on their own website. -- Switzerland is a nation shaped by the resolve of its citizens: it is not an ethnic, linguistic or religious entity. Since 1848, it has been a federal state - one of 23 in the world and the second oldest after the United States of America.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/schweiz/political.html

I don't recall the American revolution happening in 1876, it think you're off by several decades there buddy.

it's all very impressive, but like I said, no one is arguing the Republican and Democratic ideas were created by Americans, they didn't , but the Americans experimented with it on a grand scale, and certainly, without that experiment, we would still be under the delusion that only small nation states, with small populations that are more agreeable than the mobs of a large nation , can be ruled effectively as a democracy.

It's all very amusing Molly. But none of your examples qualify as a big republic. And size does matter. It is the opening up of the possibilities. It is like realizing one day that something you thought was limited actually not limited. That's the legacy of the American Republic and those who followed in its footsteps, namely the even larger democracy that is India.

So spare me your Venetian Republics. You add way too much useless examples to your rebuttals that doesn't make the case..

[LoD]

Evil Robot: What you fail to recognize is the fact that all of these threads you mention are do bash the States, but are against having the US in Civ3. Now, this thread is just some pompous chest-thumping delivered by a guy who clearly needs to vent his emotions somehow. And it has nothing to do with Civ3.
BTW, next we will probably hear the USA invented the wheel ...

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Put a sock in it, people.

The need of certain people to have the last word, no matter what, is very tiring. It has spoiled too many threads that could have led to good discussions...

[ntyatecafe]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That factbook also claims that the US has a larger land area than China, a blatant lie.

Aw, c'mon guys, it's not the size that counts...it's how you use it!

[ntyatecafe]

Just a couple quick comments for those talking about America's racism problems.

1. Have you ever seen crosses burned in someone's yard? Have you ever come face-to-face with a member of the KKK? Have you ever witnessed firsthand the horrible racism that runs rampant in America? If you answered no to any of these questions then you are in no position to comment on this matter.

2. Let's grow out of the convenience of stereotypes, shall we? I have seen more racism from African-Americans than I have from any caucasians.

Now, let me clarify before this post gets shredded and misunderstood...Do I think racism is evil? Yes. Do I think racism is a dominant factor in America? No...only an idiot or a fool would assume that racism still runs rampant through the streets in downtown USA. It still exists, but it is not a large factor, and it is not exclusively used by caucasians. Claiming that America has racism problems is like claiming that the British have major drinking problems. Some people do, some people don't. Now unless you actually know what you are talking about, sit down...shut up...and let your betters have the floor.

BTW...since everyone has gotten so longwinded in discussions of opinions, politics, and histories contaminated by opinions, I just thought I'd ask...does anyone remember the actual point to this thread? Without re-reading the first few postings?

[dexters]

Originally posted by ntyatecafe
BTW...since everyone has gotten so longwinded in discussions of opinions, politics, and histories contaminated by opinions, I just thought I'd ask...does anyone remember the actual point to this thread? Without re-reading the first few postings?

I remember But I doubt the people who take issue with my thread even cares. They took offense to my less than diplomatic comments about their ignorant attitudes towards the United States, and they deserve to get a little annoyed, what with all the anti-American sentiments backed with nothing more than ignorant self-promoting nationalism in various threads.

Well, I'm checking out of this thread. Molly and the a few others can talk to themselves.

[KrazyHorse]

It's not worth it.

[molly bloom]

Poor dexters, is your grasp of European history so shaky, you turned to the first website that mentioned the Venetian Republic that you could find? And did it mention, by any chance, William Wordsworth, noted non-Venetian, Poet Laureate of Great Britain, who happened to write a poem called 'On the Extinction of the Venetian Republic', and who lived from 1770-1850?

dexters infirm grasp of history:

'Venetian Republic 1770–1850, nice! 80 years. And a Republic based on a city state. That's certainly a large scale republic. '

Try instead for your education and edification:

https://www.boglewood.com/timeline/

1,070 years of republican government. ONE THOUSAND AND SEVENTY CONTINUOUS YEARS. Based on a city state, indeed, but as any Northern Italian, or Greek, or Croatian or Cypriot could tell you, or indeed anyone with a better grasp of history than yourself, also including, at times, parts of northern Italy, Crete, Cyprus, The Morea, The Dalmatian Islands- well, I could go on, but why should I bother educating you at my expense. I can't see any point in continuing an argument with someone whose grasp of facts is limited to second-hand information from the C.I.A. and their own biased opinions.