It seems on the issue of the USA Mexico, blacks, or native civs's being in the game there is an Atlantic divide between the point of view of europe and the point of view of North and South Americans.
It seems that to Europeans North and South America are just extensions of Europe. While to us in the Americas know better.
We will just have to see which viewpoint ES & MS go with. Being American companies I cannot imagine them favoring the paternalistic European point of view expressed on this board.
You seem to be talking about ethnicity now, I was not talking about ethnicity - ethnicity is not the same as culture, and culture is not the same as nationality.
POINT:
"Firstly look at the language settings for your comptuer. Notice that their are (at least) two settings for "English" One for the U.S. the other for england. Two come here and you will find that everywhere you go more than one language is spoken, and it's not even true that one of them will be English in any form."
There is NO, repeat NO, warranted difference between how English is spoken in America to how it is spoken in Britain to warrant a seperate *linguistic* identity. If you have travelled in England, you will soon learn that there are far more incomprehensible dialects of English in England itself, that make the American accent seem like the Queen's English. The creation of "American English" is a PURELY nationalistic development, and has nothing today with the language itself.
POINT:
Of course, when you think of British food, like most people, you think of haggis and blood pudding, because they are staples of the British diet that were never exported. However, *much* of the British diet has become so internationalised as to have lost its British identity, but that doesn't stop it from being part of British culture originally. You'll notice that I did not define any particular food produce as British, but rather the dietry compositions of them. Of course, meat is meat, and is not British, French or Chinese, but the way it is used and eaten can be sequested to cultural attributation. For example, potatoes came from the new world, but the manner in which they are used for meals developed largely in Britain and Ireland. Beef again is a very British food produce. . . one only has to go to Europe and see how little beef is used in the diets of Frenchmen and Italians to see that.
Again, as I continually reiterated, not EVERYTHING American is British. . . some is Spanish, some French, some German, some Native American, but the dominant *determinant* of culture has always been British. This is not to say that it will always be so.
POINT:
"British Ideological and philosophical principles such as indiviualrights and liberty? If anything in Europe those are attributable to the Greeks. Furthermore the form of government and it's specific operation that was and is used here in America ( a Federal Republic where each state acts like a small country though they are tightly bound) Goes back to the five tribes of the Iriqouis confederation in the north east. There were simmilar set ups in the oldworld but they usually resulted from the monarch being weak and not any real republican ideas. Not to mention being in that republic unlike most others was voluntary."
Firstly, the connection between Classical civilisation (Greece and Rome) with northern Europe (Britain and Scandinavia) is extremely tenuous, and only after the Renaissance did those cultures begin having an impact again. In France and Germany, it is different. But do not make the mistake of misconcieving European civilisation as deriving from Greece and Rome - this is a fallousy, that cannot stand up to close scrutiny.
Secondly, the Five (later Six) Nations of the Iroquois had a very weak confederation. Each tribe was able to do what they wanted. For example, during the first half of the 18th century, the Seneca refused to go to war with New France, whilst the Mohawks were continually at war with them, yet both were part of the Iroquois Confederation. They were far from tightly bound. To suggest that it is the source of your governmental system is ludicruous, and again another popular fallousy.
Thirdly, there were plenty of republics in Europe. The Dutch republic springs to mind, and while you may not consider the Netherlands to be a very prominent nation now, I can gurantee you that during the 19th century, they were. There were also many republican states in Italy, the most famous being Florence and Milan and Genoa. These city states were largely responsible for kick-starting the renaissance, and indeed many of the so-called "Founding Fathers" drew directly from the philosophy of civic duty developed in those states.
Nonetheless, American government operates in the british model, and is republican in name only.
POINT:
"As a result of 500 years of mixing of DNA and culture. I am approximately 3/8 black, 3/8 native American, 1/8 Irish, 1/8 jewish, scotish, welsh. My black earliest known black ancestor was on the duth ship that traded him and his countrymen for provisions. The name he was given was John Richard Hewing. He was a wood worker and a black smith back there in Africa and so he was here. (Hence the last name just like Sally Hemming the dressmaker) They were not yet slaves but indentured servants. Mostly male and Muslim some of them married available white and native women and stayed here. A couple went bakc to Africa if they could. Supposedly some one in George bush's family line was around. But I feel no special affection for my Extremely distant cousin.
Culturally I am mostly a Native American as is my family. Though I am a practicineg muslim convert. I still hold much native spiritualiyu in me. To the kowledgeable of both traditions they would see that their is no conflict there.
NO British here. Nigel dont try to tell someone else about thier own DNA that's an arguement you cannot ever win."
Here is where you diverge into the realm of ethnicity - ethnicity is not the same as culture, and none of what you say is wrong, but it does have little to do with culture. A person can be ethnically Black, but still be British in both in nationality and culture. A person can be ethnically arabic, but still be French in nationality and culture. A person can be a mixture of ethnicities, but still operate (and thus participate and contribute to) the prime determinate in his culture, which in America's case is British. Nothing you have raised alters this fact.
Culture has nothing to do with DNA - the two are apples and oranges.
[This message has been edited by Gaias_stoge (edited 05-01-2005 @ 08:10 AM).]
Quote:
Euro people think 100 miles places you unfantomably far away from home, while 100 years ago just happened yesterday. Americans tend to think the complete opposite on this.
I seem to, along with many other people, have gone extremely off topic.
I think colonisation in the game will make an almost perfect carbon copy of europe, unlike in real life.
[This message has been edited by harr (edited 05-01-2005 @ 09:28 AM).]
Spell color with a "u". Go to the inner city in America and talkabout "smokeing some fag's." and you will get charged with a hate crime. Say that in England and people will just think you like ciggarets. I could go on. As for linguistics:
See this reference.( By that analysys We are now all speaking American. ___________________________________________________________ For example, potatoes came from the new world, but the manner in which they are used for meals developed largely in Britain and Ireland. Just what manner is that. Mashing, bakeing, frying,what else is there? I suppose you think the Natives ate them raw? We didn't have metal but we had fire. We are not monarchy we do not have a hereditary house of lords which acts as a supreme court. If you read the declaration of Independence and the U.S. counstitution. Which all Illinoisans have to pass a test on to graduate from highschool. You would see how different our government is and was from yours. As far as the iriquois are concerned and thier influence on the American governemt goes back to the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America. This preceeded the current constitution and in it the Federal government was just as weak as the Federal government of the iriquois confederation which was their neighbor. ___________________________________________________________ So in your judgement someone could just start doing sweat lodges, speaking the Lakota language ( known as the Sioux to most of you), and wearing thier hair long and call themsleves a native American. OR someone will wear FuBu drive an Escalade, Rap, and call themselves black. In both cases the person being as white as prince Charles. This touches on a difference in America. Here both of those black and native people and the whites who sometimes emmulate them and vice versa are all American. It's more like a person in antiqity talking about being a roman citicen eventhough they are from Egypt and have a compleatly different way of life. Or even better you could compare being an American to being a Citicen of The EU. Brits and Frenchmen are different and different from greeks and Turks but all could one day have the same passport.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Nonetheless, American government operates in the british model, and is republican in name only.
___________________________________________________________
Culture has nothing to do with DNA - the two are apples and oranges.
___________________________________________________________
Quote:
'What do you think was the result of that colonizeation?'
1. the language: if u speak english english they will also understand u in america or australia. it is just a dialect (is dialect a english word)
2. Culture has nothing to do with DNA. if u were raised by african people u would be just like them except your colour. but yoour SKIN doesn't tell anything about your culture
3. there are also many foreigners in europe, maybe u didnt know?
Quote:
So in your judgement someone could just start doing sweat lodges, speaking the Lakota language ( known as the Sioux to most of you), and wearing thier hair long and call themsleves a native American. OR someone will wear FuBu drive an Escalade, Rap, and call themselves black. In both cases the person being as white as prince Charles.
Quote:
Although there is no standard definition of culture, most alternatives incorporate the Boasian postulates as in the case of Bates and Plog's offering, which we shall accept as a working version:
Culture: The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning
by your definition, Lucasain, then all the various (and often incomprehensible) accents in England are all seperate languages. Anyone who has heard Geordie, or Somerset, or Yorkshire, or Glasgow dialects will tell you that those accents (and slang words) are harder to understand than the American accent which is an *extemely* standard form of English. As to the spelling differences, that occurs everywhere. Some people in England use "ize" endings instead of "ise", etc, does that mean they speak a different form of English - of course not. Even in England, some people drop the u in words like colour - this has nothing to do with so called Americanisation, but with history: the adoption of "u" was under European/French influence during the 17th and 18th century, before then words were spelt without the u added: this is why Americans spell words that way because England colonised America before "u" was popularly added to words. To this day, in rural parts of England, words are often spelt without the "u".
On government:
So do you think the fact that your government has 1 head of state, a bicameral legislature, with an upper and lower house, and a seperate judiciary - is all just co-incidence? There are SO many various sytems of government that have been used in history, why didn't America picky one with just a single legislature? Why did they have a head of state, many nations in history have not had a head of state, look at Republican Rome, or the republican city-states of Italy. Why was the judiciary seperated from the legislature, again this is not some common universal feature of government systems. These are products of how the English form of government developed: with an upper and lower house seperate from an executive authority (embodied around the head of state) and seperate from the judiciary.
If you want to see how esteemly Americans appreciated the English sytem of government read some of the works by Bernard Bailyn or Jack Greene on the subject. The differences the Americans made was making the head of state directly elected, and making the upper house directly elected. They didn't change the form of government at all.
I'm not knocking Native American tradition. . . I said earlier that America has had 200 years to draw upon a unique culture to shift the anglo-saxon *determinant* in its "own" culture, and hasn't. I did alot of research on the Iroquois Confederacy for a course I took on regional politics in colonial America and the Iroquois role in the balance of power between the English colonies and New France. I found their setup to be fascinating and there is much to admire in their culture, but unless you can tell me the specifics of how their government operated (at the time, and not latter reconstructions by both scholars and Native Americans), then I will say to you again that the American system is a carbon-copy of the English.
For those interested, it is interesting to note how the model has changed. In 1783, the King of England had the power to appoint members to the executive authority; this function was taken over by the President in the American version. Now however, the monarch of England now longer has that power, and indeed the entire executive not only has to come from Parliament, but is dominated by the party system. In America it has stayed pretty much the same, and the American system today operates how the English system did 300 years ago.
On the House of Lords as Supreme Court
Only the Law Lords act as the supreme court, not the entire House of Lords, and the Law Lords are *usually* lawyers and judges who have been made lords because of their expertise. I can tell you, listening to how politicsed the American supreme court has become in the public view, that the Law Lords in England are generally held in higher esteem that the American Supreme court, which inevitably gets bashed by the left or right, depening on whether a left or right president populated it.
On Articles of Confederation being basis for government
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I may be, but I thought the Articles of Confederation referred to the government setup during the War of Independence? If so, this was always thought to be only a temporary measure and was not intended as the ultimate form of government. In fact, it was main purpose was to provide the means to fight a war - it was not developed as a means of governing people.
***So in your judgement someone could just start doing sweat lodges, speaking the Lakota language ( known as the Sioux to most of you), and wearing thier hair long and call themsleves a native American. OR someone will wear FuBu drive an Escalade, Rap, and call themselves black. In both cases the person being as white as prince Charles.***
I don't know what you mean here.
***compare being an American to being a Citicen of The EU. Brits and Frenchmen are different and different from greeks and Turks but all could one day have the same passport.***
Argh - that's what I have been saying all along. That is an EXAMPLE OF NATIONALITY - it has nothing to do with culture, and nothing to do with ethnicity. There is NO european culture; nor is there any European ethnicity. People who use European in such contexts are just being LAZY, and nothing else because they cannot be bothered to express the intricasies of the situation and so just fob it all of under a generalisation.
I reiterated in my first post that I did not intend my point (that American culture IS British culture) to be inferred as a generalisation. I thought I made enough qualifications by saying that not EVERYTHING in America is British, but rather a smorgasboard of Spanish, French, Native American (etc.) influences. However the determinant is, and always has been, British. Is is a British government AMerica uses, British law (except in certain states) that America uses to bind its society, British traditions that *dominate* social consciousness in America, et.c etc. This does not mean that there are no Naitve American based holidays, or that I am denying that Americans eat Native American food, or French food or Spanish food, etc. But if you compare how we define values such as "French" or "Chinese" or "Indian" then by those some methods of definition we have to define American as being basically British, otherwise we are allowing for differences of detail for Americans that we don't allow for Breton in France, for example, or Bavarians in Germany.
[This message has been edited by Gaias_stoge (edited 05-01-2005 @ 09:05 PM).]
I don't know what you mean here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here is what I meant by this. There are some non black, non native people who try to act like they are natives or black. Surely you may have seen in TV or movies from here some white people dressed up like rapper's (I'm talking affluent suburban white teen boys mostly). Or you have heard of the "new age" movement which basically takes native American spirituality and preaches it to the non- natives
___________________________________________________________
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I may be, but I thought the Articles of Confederation referred to the government setup during the War of Independence? "The Articles of Confederation Article II. Says that all staes while in the confederation are compleatly soverign and retain all the rights that are not reserved for the whole confederation. Article V. Specifies the structure of the congress to be a unicameral legislature and seems to specify the right for a congress man the fillabuster. Article XI. Specifically invites canada to join u.s. Now a source as to the Iriquois: "Families were organized in clans; clans in tribes; and tribes in a confederation. In each case the smaller units surrendered part of their autonomy to the larger in such wise that the whole was closely interdependent and cohesive. The establishment of the higher unit created new rights, privileges, and duties. In each unit, legislative, executive, and judicial functions were exercised by chiefs, who were organized into councils, and of whom there were three grades." This is exactly what happens in the united states. The lower units (states) keep thier soverignty except for power delgated to the higher unit (The U.S. Govt.) I also have direct evidence as follows. Quoted from... "....the Americans said their forefathers had rejoiced to hear his words and that they sank: This source particularly speaks on how Ben Franklin was impressed by the Iriquois confederacy as a source of examples for their government. particulary the system of cheks and balances the iriquois had that. They were also people the Founding father's kew personally and lived next too for 300 years. They had even intermarried. (This is why DNA is important) Dressing as natives to throw the tea into Boston harbor and adopting a native American form of government were done to show how different they were from England, or whicever European country thier ancestors came from. As for the current constitution having a bi cameral legislature that results from a compormise between the more populous states and the less populous states. ----------------------------------------------------------- Not really a Smorgasboard more of synthesis, a mosaic of tiny tiny tiles so mixed together that each tile while retaining it's identity takes part in a larger more profound identity. This is what some E.U.ropeans do not understand yet. It does not matter that Turkey is a Muslim Country or that The British want to retain their monarc as head of state. All of you are European and have more incommon with eachother than People in America, The middle east or anywhere else. Are you going to be as Wise as Mr. Franklin and listen to the natives who have had a federal unuion? Are you going to continue to question weather or not an American knows his very own constitution and history which he ( all americans really) has studied since 3rd grade? I have no question that being a Briton you know MUCH more about England than I do give me the props I give you.
___________________________________________________________
You are wrong on that. This is not an opinion. My source is :
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781."
deep into their Hearts, the Advice was good, it was Kind. They said to one another, the Six Nations are a wise people, let us hearken to their Council and teach our children to follow it. Our old Men have done so. They have frequently taken a single Arrow and said, Children, see how easy it is broken, then they have tied twelve together with strong Cords—And our strongest Men could not break them—See said they—this is what the Six Nations mean. Divided a single Man may destroy you—United, you are a match for the whole World. (according to the official record of the event)"
I thought I made enough qualifications by saying that not EVERYTHING in America is British, but rather a smorgasboard of Spanish, French, Native American (etc.) influences.
-----------------------------------------------------------
What does this have to do with the game? Well it might be nice to know something of the Natives on the rondom map you are allied with. The purpose of the thread was to discuss the evolution of the colonies from a collection of warring European enclaves to independant countries as they no longer need shipments from the home city.
Quote:
The purpose of the thread was to discuss the evolution of the colonies from a collection of warring European enclaves to independant countries as they no longer need shipments from the home city.
The purpose of this reply is to discuss that you aren't looking for a discussion. This is ironic, because I said discuss, and And for christ-sake, it's a gameplay element. Or would you prefer that approximately 3/4 of the way into the game, the English player loses control of 50% of his country, the Spanish suffer crippling inflation, And could you all please format your posts correctly? It's not hard to use the damn quote tags. It hurts my eyes when you don't. And my eyes are more important than you, y'know. Unicode for brackets: 005B (that's 0091 in base 10) for left, 005D (0093) for right. Quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, and I may be, but I thought the Articles of Confederation referred to the government setup during the War of Independence? You know, you quoted the half of his quote that was accurate. What he is wrong about is that it was to be temporary- it wasn't. But it was the government set up during the War for Independence. Quote: particulary the system of cheks and balances the iriquois had that Yup. Because that was totally outside the political theory of Europe. It definitely wasn't present in Europe. Nope. And decidedly was never considered by the Baron de Montesquieu. Quote: Dressing as natives to throw the tea into Boston harbor and adopting a native American form of government were done to show how different they were from England, or whicever European country thier ancestors came from. Are you sure it wasn't a protest of English taxation on imported tea? And are you quite sure that no one during the French enlightenment had considered a democratic government? Or that British theorists, who may or may not have been named John Locke, hadn't already considered a government that recognized a natural right to "life, liberty, and property" which Jefferson amended due to some noisome issues of humans and property which we had some issue with during our early history? Quote: Or you have heard of the "new age" movement which basically takes native American spirituality and preaches it to the non- natives huhwhazah? Isn't that what your claiming our vaunted Founding Fathers did? Ok, I give up, y'all are incoherent. Watching Family Guy drunk made more sense. And was funnier. Although this is all pretty funny, nonetheless. Ciao.
___________________________________________________________
You are wrong on that. This is not an opinion. My source is
Well, now we will finish talking and go to his funeral dinner.
Don't be put out at our eating pancakes-
it's a very old custom and there's something nice in that!
You don't know it, but you belong here
You said: "Not really a Smorgasboard more of synthesis, a mosaic of tiny tiny tiles so mixed together that each tile while retaining it's identity takes part in a larger more profound identity. This is what some E.U.ropeans do not understand yet. It does not matter that Turkey is a Muslim Country or that The British want to retain their monarc as head of state. All of you are European and have more incommon with eachother than People in America, The middle east or anywhere else."
I do not want to be rude, but this is utter nonesense. A Briton has more in common with an American or an Australian, than he does with a Frenchman. The EU is an exercise in futility, because it is attempting to use as its basework, a force that takes a lot longer to reap results, and that is geography. The only thing the member states of the EU share is geography. That is a powerful force, very powerful, but it is one that exerts its influence only over a long period of time. A case in point is the US, which for 200 years remained tied to Britain, in spite of geography, but eventually, broke free as geography affected its progression more and more.
The EU has no common language, it has no common religion (unless you want to use the extremely generic term "Christian" which can mean anything these days), it has no common law system, it the power of nationalism taken to the next level, and as such, is entirely abstract in composition, relying *entirely* on political power to keep it together. The point of culture is that it binds people together with more than just political power.
As to your calims regarding the American constitution, I had to do a whole lot of research on that, on the republican ideology evident in the American system of government; I have a whole bunch of articles taken from periodicals like the William and Mary Quarterly - they are all at home. I will list them, as the source of my opinion.
But I must say, I have never heard the notion that the American government was based on native models to be sustainable, and my lecturer was fully sympathetic with the plight of Native Americans (as, I like to feel, am I), and even he did not seriously contend that they were the source of the political framework of the united states.
I will also, incidently, list the information I have on the Iroquois Confederacy, because I have NEVER ever heard their "governments" referred to as a federal union - any of the various native tribes that I am familar with (which admittedly, are only those along the eastern seaboard during the 18th century). So little is known about how they governed themselves, most of it is speculation, or second-hand sources (and yes, that does include what latter Native Americans said about their traditions 200 years later: just because they are Native Americans doesn't mean they should have to withstand the same kind of historical process that everyone else does. We wouldn't accept, without questioning, what an Englishman today claims to be the functioning of government 200 years ago).
[This message has been edited by Gaias_stoge (edited 05-01-2005 @ 11:55 PM).]
"What does this have to do with the game? Well it might be nice to know something of the Natives on the rondom map you are allied with."
Native American history and culture is truly fascinating, and I hope ES do it justice in AOE3.
Read the references I gave. Search the internet with your favorite tool. Go to a good public library where you are. You will find much is known of the way Native Americans governed themselves.
We are not all dead. About 3 Million federally rcognized native Americans now live. However, mostly they live on in people like me. The majority of "black" Americans and "white" Americans Who came here prior to the Elis island immigration period have at least one native American ancestor.
I'm glad that youn see my main point in all of this. I just want to clear up misconceptions about America. Most Americans are just as bad about Europe and the rest of the world. I spend just as much time trying to educate Americans.
Sometimes when we type things come off sounding cold and impersonal if not combative when they are not meant that way at all.
Quote:
I just want to clear up misconceptions about America.
Quote:
We are not all dead. About 3 Million federally rcognized native Americans now live. However, mostly they live on in people like me. The majority of "black" Americans and "white" Americans Who came here prior to the Elis island immigration period have at least one native American ancestor.
Do you know me? Other wise you cannot say what culture I have.
What I can gather about you is that you dont get the whole America as a melting pot metaphore.
Suppose you have a pile of bronze, copper, lead, Iron, and Tungsten. You melt them all down and pour them together. What do you have when the mixture cools? You have a strong Alloy that is not singularly any one of those things but together stronger than they are alone.
Replace metal atoms with DNA, culture, and history and you get the United States of America in one case, and Mexico in another. In America all of those culture's and peoples have mixed both their ethnicity and culture at the same time. One result is the multicultural America you see today. The other is multiracial, multiethnic people like me who have been since the scond generation of the colonial period. The two things go hand'n glove.
Copyright © 1997–2024 HeavenGames LLC. All rights reserved.
v2.5.0