Well, I think the very reason that Cachimbo and SD point out for the issue of national/cultural identity being...well, if not more volatile or important, than certainly entrenched and historically-founded in Europe than in America works the other way as well.

(Not to disagree with their points, though, as they are pretty valid.)

European nations have, for the most part, had those hundreds and in some cases thousands of years to build an identity.

America's identity, it can be argued, is still being shaped to a degree, 230+ years in.

But for that very reason, what identity there IS already may be clung to even more ferociously or fanatically in America in some cases, for the simple reason that, feeling there's LESS of a string that binds America together and makes it America, those who defend such values hate to see any go, as it's in their eyes a case of losing what little they already had identity-wise.

The major identity "threads" in America, however, are on an inevitable line of conflict:

The perception of American being a predominantly-European-and-Christian nation (ie, "One Nation Under God," it was only added to the Pledge in the 1950s, but for most Americans, it resonates like it was there Day One) and the ideals of immigration and revolution.

America WAS, of course, predominantly White and Christian and European at the start...the Founders, certainly, weren't that way--plenty of deists, agnostics, and atheists in the bunch, from Franklin and Paine to Jefferson and even Washington--but the average American in 1781 had two common threads:

They were fighting a revolution together--for the most part--and they were white, of European descent, and Christian.

Flash foward to 2011, and there are reports now that within 20-50 years, whites may no longer be a 51%+ majority in the US...still likely the largest group will be whites, but still, with the huge influx of Latin Americans and Asian Americans especially, the Whte-First US Culture is vanishing quickly and in all likelihood irreversibly.

(Incidentally, that's one thing I DO like about living in California, you REALLY see that influx and DO get to see all the diversity, CA's probably one of the most diverse states in the Union...probably the biggest difference is Northern California was and remains a large site for Asian immigration, and so there are more Asian-Americans up there than down here in So Cal, where our proximity to Mexico and Latin America makes the Latin-American population larger than in Northern CA, and probably anywhere else in the country.)

The other side of that first thread, the "Christian" side, is unravelling fast as well...

Case in point--take this very site.

How many on here are atheists or agnostics, like I am?

Quite a few.

How many are religious?

Again, probably quite a few--we actually have a good mix here, I wonder what our exact numbers are, faiths vs. anti-faiths--but not at all the 99% or whatever it must have been in 1781 or even 1951 for most of America.



The bottom line to all of this:

America's "founding features" of white, European descent, and Christian are all diminishing markedly, and with THAT so many Aemricans say go "American family values."

...

"American Family Values."

Pardon me while I recover from being sick at the very sound of that phrase...

But it's true, and THAT'S whee so much of the fundamentalist and hate groups in the US come from--a fear of losing what little identity they feel America already HAS.



Those in England or another part of Europe, a question:

Suppose we granted this idea that multi-culturalism IS a threat--at least in the eyes of some--to your national and cultural identity.

You'd STIL have hundreds or thousands of years of myths and legends and kings and castles and traditions still THERE in the woodwork, you might lose an ethnic majority, perhaps, but still, there's still be the same elements of culture there all over the country in the flags and structures and art and music and all manner else that creates a cultural idenity.

America HAS no King Arthur or Roland legends, no Beowulf, no castles or old songs or centuries of traditions that make up a culture...

It's "white and Christian" to many Americans that make America America...

And so, with "less" to start with, they strike back all the more to protect what little they fear they have in the first place.

This problem could be solved if the EU divided itself into 3 blocs. The northern bloc (Germany, Benelux, Scandinavia, Finland, France, Austria, Switzerland), a southern bloc (Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece, *Ireland, Cyprus, Malta) and an eastern bloc (post-communist countries).

The EU should go at three speeds, there's no way on earth they can form a political and economic union with the disparities within the bloc.

Abundance of land = less pressure for "national identity" (ditto class identity). America is liberal because anybody/everybody could come here and not "interfere" with anybody else. Europe is much more densely populated, hence more problems with identity and class divisions.

Maybe I'm being ignorant, Putin...

But where's England in there?

And why's Ireland with the southern-bloc countries...? You have an asterisk there, so I'm assuming you see the issue there...?

Also, just got done watching what's alleged to be the 12-minute video this guy made before going off to bomb and shoot people up...

Which can no longer be viewed--at least the one I was watching, anyway, there are multiple copies, I think--as YouTube has deemed it "shocking and disgusting content" and has removed it...

3 things:

1. Quite a bit of logical fallacy in there supported by nice hate pictures (my favorite statistic: arguing that Islam and Communism together killed 500 million while Christendom "only" killed 15 million and Nazism "only" 20 million, so, of course, his plan to form a new Knights Templar and kill all Marxists and Muslims is totally justified...)
2. This guy's a loony (maybe that went without ssaying?)
3. I don't think he would have cared for either Putin or I...just a guess... ;)

Nope... it's still on Youtube.

To be honest, compared to the poorly made shite the likes of the BNP usually put together, that was alarmingly good. The combination of lies and truths were well weaved together, the music complimented it nicely, the imagery was impressive, and the narrative flowed well...

I can genuinely see people falling for it...

This is worrying

And all the left-wing hate-mongers dance in glee that they have a terrible tragedy to pin on someone from the extreme right, while pretending to be outraged. I wonder how many of you are equally outraged when left-wing extremists go ff their rocker, or Islamic extremists....or do you then become apologists? You are all quite disgusting...particularly in that you consistently fail to acknowledge that anyone *this* extreme doesn't even come close to representing any particular wing, but in fact have become so malevolently hateful that they represent nobody but themselves and their own peculiar brand of dementia....much like you hate-monger so gleeful that you can point a finger of blame and pretend your gripes are legitimate.

@Octavious:

I agree, it would've been a lot more comforting if it'd been some nasal voice and a shaky camera for 12 minutes...

There are multiple uploads, and I can't access them because they're flagged and I'm not logged in (I HAVE an account, same as my name here, basically, obiwanobiwan13, but I've been unable to use it for months because everytime I log in it tells me:

"Your browser's cookie functionality is turned off. Please turn it on."

And I have cookies enabled and eveything, I've tried clearing my cookies...tried opening a new account, but got the same issue in a few days...

Does anyone know--WAY off the topic now--why this is, and how I can possibly fix this and actually log onto YouTube again?

I had that same problem, I just gave up on it and created a new account, and somehow that cleared up the problem.

@krellin:

First, the guy in his own manifesto and video described himself as a conservative, spent an entire manifesto and video berating--to put it VERY kindly--Marxism, and went so far as to actually plagiarize sections of his manifesto by simple substituting "Marxist" for "leftist" and "Muslim" for "black people."

I think we can safely label him right-wing and conservative as...well, he's labelled HIMSELF right-wing and conservative and a Christian fundamentalist.

Second, no one here REALLY cares to debate you on the subject of Left vs. Right or attack the Right or defend the Left, but I'll tell you what:

If you want, I was going to set up a live debate sometime soon anyway...

Care to do it then?

You and I, and whoever else wants to join in, and you can make and settle your points THERE.

@vamo:

I know, I created a new account, too...same problem's occured now, and I don't want to set up a third e-mail for the express purpose of creating what might become a third account i can't use...

@ Krellin:

Really? I mean, REALLY??? Are you that much of a troll that you will blatantly ignore everything I said and move on to make it a left vs. right issue again, trying to prove that the liberals are dicks and, therefore, you win? Not only is that not an argument in any sense of the word, but it's simply disrespectful in that you're only demonstrating to what extent you'll go to ignore your interlocutor.

Dude: no one here cares anymore about left or right where this tragedy is concerned. If you need to make it about that, go talk to your daddy or your friends about it. Don't come here and disrespect the people who've taken the time to participate in this discussion in a constructive manner, hoping to make better sense of their world. That's just low and, I hope, not even worthy of you.

By the way, Krellin, you showed interest for the game that Zultar was putting together, the game where everyone was to be civil to one another. I'm therefore going to assume that you hold civility to be a quality in people, something you'd like to see more of in the world rather than less. If my assumption is correct, how do you justify acting the way you did here? And if my assumption is incorrect, what the hell are you doing participating in that game?

Arg! I hate that you managed to piss me off! And not so much for your views, which I'll grant I don't share, but for how bad of an interlocutor you are. I mean, bloody hell, this is a diplomacy site, a place where people are supposed to be good at listening and interacting with one another. And you act like that? The only other person I know here that can piss me off the way you just did is Tettleton's Chew, and though he sucks at having discussions, at least his points are somewhat documented.

Cachimbo...

First the double-whammy of the good point on extremism and Nietzsche reference and then that little number...

We HAVE to talk more often, my friend. ;)

obi: I'd assume the UK would be in Putin's northern bloc and Ireland would be southern since it hasn't hit post-Industrial economy yet. But the thing is...Norway isn't EU at all, so an EU reorg would only help them insomuch as Sweden would remain more homogeneous, and so less diversity would cross the border from there.

I don't think the UK fits in Europe. I added Switzerland and Scandinavia even though they're not eurozone countries because their economies depend on Europe very heavily. I think the UK can go it alone and its interests are too different from Europe to fit in very well. UK is the world's banker and could never abide by German style banking rules. It's also not an agricultural country so it does things like demand a rebate for 25 years even though it's richer than many of the countries who pay them the rebate.

Ummm...

Granted I'm not English, and unless it's a question of the language or literature I'm not the person to be calling things out in terms of what's English and what's not...

But I'm PRETTY sure England and the UK's in Europe, and that they fit in...they have differences, sure, but still, keeping England/the UK out of the EU seems akin to keeping New York or out of the United States because their culture and "state of mind"--ah, pun!--is pretty different from the South and Midwest.

Plus, having a European Union without the UK is like having an Hall of Fame for Writers and leaving out Shakespeare (sorry, I had to reference him eventually, and hey, he WAS from England...but bottom line, leaving either out, the UK or Shakespeare, out of a collective group like the EU or a Writers Hall of Fame meant to celebrate and unify the area/medium is so huge an oversight it's incredible, it jsut doesn't work, there's a huge whole and an elephant in the room if you leave the UK out of the EU.)

Norway is part of the Schengen area. So their border policy is essentially an EU-wide one.

And for reasons SD stated Ireland is included among "southern Europe" since its economy is very similar to southern Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8510603.stm
http://www.economist.com/node/11496844?story_id=11496844

Namely because they don't have the advantage of geographical proximity to the high skill cheap labor ex-communist countries from which they can export their products.

The UK has more in common with America than Europe. We're Anglo-Saxon countries with a particular cultural mindset that is at odds with the continent.

First off, this attack was an abomination. The summer camp slaughter was particularly chilling. I hope Norway finds a way to recover from this tragedy.

As for the UK having more in common with America than Europe, Putin33's right. Before joining the EU's predecessor the UK had comparable trade relationships with Canada and Australia and other parts of the former Empire. That was probably a better system for the country than being shackled to European institutions that come from a totally different political culture.

Now that they're in though, I don't think Britain can get out. For one, there's the problem of Ireland. There's no way Ireland can survive economically without the trade benefits of common EU membership with the UK. That's doubly true for the basket case of Northern Ireland. The ties between the Old Commonwealth and Britain have frayed quite a bi in the last forty years as well. Australia cares much more about Asia and Canada much more about America than about some shriveled island nation where they happen to speak the same language.

The EU as it currently exists probably can't survive the next five years. Either there will be a unapologetic move to federalism or the whole thing will collapse back to being a strong trade bloc (which is all it ever needed to be anyhow). Britain won't accept being a state in United Europe and it would suffer greatly in the aftermath of an EU implosion. So no one really know what will happen, but the current state of affiars cannot hold.

I have two questions:

1. Who was it who said basically the opposite from what Putin's saying now and said, when I asked in the Philosophy Weekly we had on the subject of these multi-national groups, whether the US and Canada might join the EU someday under a larger, "Western Union" bloc name, and said that the UK was closer to Europe than America/Canada and as such most Americans wouldn't "understand" Englishmen or Europeans well enough to form a union, and vice versa?

2. ...Well, to restate the question, as a hypothetical--why SHOULDN'T there be a "Western Union" with the US and Canada involved, along with maybe a couple other nations? Really, the world CAN be split into East and West, and that's being seen more and more right now with India, the Arab States, and China standing in opposition to the US, Canada, and the EU...why not unify? Aside from political reasons, I think it'd be a great show of mutual support...we have our differences in the West, to be sure, but I can't think of any one nation in that group that'd whole-heartedly love to chop to pieces and destroy another Western nation...notice all our wars nowadays are NOT fought in Normandy or Berlin or Britain or the Atlantic, but rather in Jerusalem and Baghdad and Kabul and, as we all fear might happen, Tehran and P'yongyang. Granted Ireland...doesn't like England--to be nice about it--and I'm sure the French and Germans aren't likely to forget a century and half or more of fighting in 70+ years and PIGS are sort of like the rude half-cousins of the family that everyone looks at and shakes their heads at during reunions, and France and...a fair amound of Canadians, perhaps, too...and some English...and, let's just say, everyone in Europe who hated the Bush Administration as much as Democrats here did don't care for America's "America--FUCK YEAH!" attitude...

But we still all are MOSTLY unified as Western Family...a pretty disfunctional family, sure--wouldn't that be an awesome sitcom?--but still a family...

Put it this way:

What core values or cultural touchstones in the EU exist that Americans or Canadians would totally reject?

...

OK, I don't care for Beethoven as much as other classical musicians, but his "Ode To Joy" is still good as an anthem of peace...

In a thread that's started because of a lunatic who feared Europe was losing it's cultural identity to multiculturalism and multinational unions, I think I can take the opposite stance with great gusto here, and I'll go so far as to say that multinational unions are the way of the future, and the West should and MUST unionize.

For political reasons...
For economic reasons...
And for cultural reasons.

There are differences, but I think a Western Union, or any union, must draw STRENGTH from such diversity...rather than retreating into a cowardly clinging to old battle lines and differences of the past, as the Norway bomber would have us do.

America's not perfect, as a proud Democratic-Jewish-Agnostic-Californian-American.

It could learn a thing or two from Germany and the Canada about fiscal responsibility.

And maybe they could learn a thing or two from us about...um...well...we're generally good at blowing things up... :p (Well, we could try and teach them to play some better baseba--no...no...we've outsourced a lot of that to Japan and Latin America, too...) ;)

Bottom line:

A Western Union will happen, it should happen, and we in the West must set aside our nationalist feelings and embrace a joining like this all the more in the face of the alternative of fearful and destructive xenophobic and isolationist ideals such as those of Mr. Breivik.

Also, just becuase I looked it up and can't believe it...

BELGUIM is the site for the unofficial capital of the EU, Brussels?!

...

BELGUIM???

Of all the countries in Europe, out of ALL of them...BELGIUM???

I mean, I get having an offical capital in one of the larger nations could slant things and be unfair, but...BELGUIM???

Why not just rotate it, like whoever is elected head of the EU has their nation's captial serve as the unofficial capital for the duration of the elected leader's term?

Or, if that doesn't work...Switzerland's sort of the World's Unofficial Neutral Country anyway, even in Diplomacy it's neutralled out...plus it's right in the middle of Europe...why not have scenic Zuric be the unofficial capital?

...

Sorry, I don't mean any disrespect to Belgium, I'm sure it's a very nice country, and every important--I know I always consider it top priority when I play as a Western Power in Diplomacy--but I just find it funny that of all the places for the EU's unofficial center of power, the small parcel of land England, Germany, and France all blew to pieces in the World Wars trying to fight for or protect or take over, and, of course, the nation that's the worse swearword in the galaxy, is the capital...

:)

...Apparently because Switzerland ISN'T part of the EU...OK...

Why not?

1.) Switzerland is eternally neutral. It only joined the UN in 2002 IIRC.

2.) Guess where NATO is headquartered?

No, a political and economic union with North America & Europe makes no sense. As much as there are differences between the UK and Europe, those differences are 1000x greater between the US and Europe. One of the reasons why France said no to the UK joining the common market - not once but twice - was precisely for this reason. France believed that the UK would be a trojan horse for American domination of Europe. The whole purpose of the EU is to form a counterbalancing bloc of capital to the US. If US's giant economy came into the picture the leadership of Germany and France would be shoved aside. The smaller countries would be completely dominated by the US. There's no way in hell this would happen.

Canada is a dependency of America. US FDI in Canada is something like $300 billion. Foreign firms control more than half of Canada's manufacturing, with the US being the vast majority of that. The US controls about half of Canada's lucrative gas and oil industry, and 1/4 of Canada's financial industry.

And Ireland has moved so far away from dependence on the UK that I'm not sure it needs the UK to be in the EU. Only 16% of its exports go to the UK these days. That's way down from just 30 years ago when it was over half.

1. According to Wikipedia--great source, I know, but still--NATO is HQed in Brussels as well (gee, that's quite a bit of responsibility being put on belgium there, HQ of the EU and NATO...is BELGIUM secretly running the Western World?) ;)

2. WHY is Switzerland so neutral? Any Swiss players on the site that can explain? I mean, for a military issue I understand, but...well, that level of neturality comes across almost like xenophobia, and when you're RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CONTINENT it's kind of hard to be isolationist and so very...neutral.

Belgium (and Luxembourg and Strausbourg) as the capitals makes sense when you consider that a swamp on the Chesapeake was deemed the capital of the US, rather than Philadelphia or NYC.

Switzerland is three nations in one - Italian, German, and French. Considering how many wars these groups fought in the past 200 years, if Switzerland ever partook their country would fall apart.