The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
We all belong to multiple different groups - family, friends. colleagues, city of origin, current residence city, sport club supporter, music genre, ET, etc etc. It depends who we are talking to. One thing is certain - the desire to belong to a 'gang', pack, flock or swarm - just to belong - is very powerful.
We who live or were born in a 'European' country, only find the definition important (and think about it) in comparison to other large groupings such as 'The States', Islam, Asia etc. If at all.
Europe is amorphous, hard to grasp, dishomogenous, in flux. The one thing that Europe (Europeans) is not is nationalistic. And that is a good thing. Nobody is very patriotic about Europe. Nobody salutes the European flag; nobody stands for the Euopean anthem (except to go to the fridge when the Eurovision theme song plays once a year, as we ready to settle into our sofas for an evening of kitsch).
In all other ways, Europeans are essentially local. We cherish our roots (afew and I have a connection merely by being from the same city culture even though neither of us have lived there for decades).
Being European is pretty much synonomous with being human. It is Big Picture stuff that is not terribly relevant to everyday life. You can't be me, I'm taken
It could also be: cultural, religious, 'anthropologous', geological.
Or a group of people united by a shared currency.
That's not even the entire EU :-)
Everyone knows where and what America is.
Really? Is it everything from Tierra del Fuego to the Barents Sea? Or is it the area of NAFTA? Or all areas controlled by the USA? (Is Puerto Rico America?) Or only the areas of the USA where people can vote for President and senators? Or as often in people's minds, only the contiguous 49 states?
Which brings me back to comment that:
It's all so frustrating to me.
Here is something Emmanuel Todt (the French sociologist/demographer who correctly predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, and who recently predicted the same for the USA) called my attention to: that in the 'Anglo-Saxon culture' (itself a very vague term, but useful for the moment), the opposed allowance of variation and need for categorisation leads to the maxim, "you have to draw a line somewhere".
Only, I think reality is more complex. One has to accept multiple concepts of 'Europe'. It refers to the tectonical unit delimited by the once collision with the Siberian craton (the Urals), the island chains and mini-continents in the long gone Thethis Ocean (Caucasus Mountains etc.). It refers to the mapping convention roughly delimited by the same borders plus the sea breakthrough between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It refers to the traditional areas of Christianity. It refers to the areas affected by the Enlightement in the 18th and early 19th century minus (former) colonies. It refers to the traditional dwelling area of 'white people', alternatively: speakers of Indo-German and Finno-Ugric (and Basque) languages. It refers to all the member states of UEFA or Eurovision (an area from Vladivostok to Ankara, Jerusalem and Lisbon). It refers to the current and future EU (which currently heavily debates the joining of Turkey, but not everyone is against Russia joining in a further future, and let's not forget Morocco wants to join too). It refers to the EU countries and their non-member neighbours that run a welfare state. It refers to the Eurozone (which contains only 12 EU members of 25, but also contains 3 mini-states which aren't EU members). It refers to the Schengen zone within which there are no border controls (again not all EU members, but Norway is in it).
Europe is an amorphous hodge-podge term, its meaning and geographical reach depends on context. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I don't think Puerto Rico is typically thought of as part of America, though it has just as much claim to being included in my definition as Washington.
Everything else is Canada, Central America, the Northwest Territory, or South America (Central and South America being "Latin America" in everyday discussion here in the states).
I'm not sure how we can define Europe, so I chose "All of the Above". Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
Same for 'America': for example in Hungary, North and South America ('The Americas' in the AFAIK few-decades-old US neologism) are one continent. IIRC that was at German influence, but usage is changing in Germany at US influence. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
with this graph which includes a few unconventional definitions of Europe:
(click for larger version) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Or ESA, an organisation for space reasearch and rocket science, which has 17 core members and 3 associated members, the latter includes Canada, and Russia may become part of it given that cooperation deepens. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Not necessarily. As I explained in that thread, "center" is not unambiguous - it could be either be a territorial averaging, or an averaging of the borders, and both of the previous depend on what shallow water areas you include into the landmass. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
From this earlier diary, it is clear where the centre of Europe is... or maybe not so clear... A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Everything else is defined by natural shorelines.
the Americas are divided between North America (the US and Canada) and Latin America (everything south of same)
In North America everybody speaks english (including in Quebec where they speak French in order to piss off the federal government).
In Latin America, everyone speaks Spanish, except for Belize, and the Gianas. Brazil allegedly speaks portuguse, but it's actually closer to spanish.
The Caribbean is technically part of North America except for the Greater Antillies, which are part of Latin America.
In Suriname they speak Taki Taki - a mix of English, Dutch, Spanish, French, Portuguese and African.
In the French Antilles (Guadaloupe, St. Martin, Martinique) they speak French (patois). Parts of Dominica also use a French Patois.
Brazilian Portuguese is not closer to Spanish than it is to European Portuguese.
Soon to be dead - Native languages are still spoken in North America.
Algic Amerindian Language Family
http://www.native-languages.org/linguistics.htm#tree
Amerindian Language Families
Actually, Amerindian languages do not belong to a single language family, but 25-30 small ones; they are usually discussed together because of the small numbers of native speakers of the Amerindian language families and how little is known about many of them. There are around 25 million native speakers of the more than 800 surviving Amerind languages. The vast majority of these speakers live in Central and South America, where language use is vigorous. In Canada and the United States, only about half a million native speakers of an Amerindian tongue remain.
Abnaki-Penobscot, Algonquin, Arapaho, Atikamek, Blackfoot (Siksika, Blackfeet), Cheyenne, Cree, Etchemin, Gros Ventre (Atsina), Kickapoo, Lenape (Delaware), Loup A/Loup B, Lumbee (Pamlico, Croatan), Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, Menominee, Mesquakie-Sauk (Sac and Fox), Miami-Illinois, Michif (Metis), Mi'kmaq (Micmac), Mohegan/Pequot, Mohican/Mahican, Montagnais Innu, Munsee, Nanticoke, Narragansett, Naskapi Innu, Ojibwe (Chippewa, Anishinaabemowin), Potawatomi, Powhatan, Shawnee, Wampanoag, Wiyot, Yurok; possibly Beothuk (Red Indian)
Athabaskan (Na-Dene) Language Family The Athabascan, or Na-Dene, languages are spoken from northwestern Canada and Alaska south to the Rio Grande. They include:
# Athabaskan Languages
# Eastern Apache # Navajo (Dine) # Western Apache # Northern Athabaskan Languages # Alaska-Yukon Athabascan Languages # Degexit'an (Ingalik) # Gwich'in # Han # Holikachuk # Koyukon # Lower Tanana # Tanacross # Tutchone # Upper Tanana # Upper Kuskokwim # Southern Alaskan Athabascan Languages # Ahtna (Ahtena) # Tanaina # British Columbia Athapaskan Languages # Babine # Carrier (Dakelh, Yinka Dene) # Chilcotin # Northwest Canadian Athapaskan Languages # Kaskan Languages (Nahanni) # Kaska # Tahltan # Tagish # Beaver (Dane-zaa, Dunneza) # Dene (Chipewyan) # Dogrib # Sekani # Slavey (Dene Tha) # Clatskanie # Sarcee (Tsuu T'ina) # Tsetsaut # Pacific Coast Athabaskan Languages # Oregon Athabaskan Languages # Galice # Tolowa # Tututni-Coquille # Upper Umpqua # California Athabaskan Languages # Hupa # Mattole # Wailaki (Sinkyone/Lassik) # Kato # Eyak # Tlingit # Haida
# Northern Caddoan Languages # Pawnee-Kitsai Languages # Arikara # Kitsai # Pawnee # Wichita # Southern Caddoan Languages # Caddo
# Eskimoan Languages # Yupik Languages # Alaskan Yupik # Gulf Yupik (Alutiiq/Sugpiaq) # Siberian Yupik (Yupit/Yuit) # Inuktitut-Inupiatun (Inuit) # Aleut (Unangan)
The Hokan languages are spoken in the southwestern and west coast US and in northwestern Mexico (Baja California and Sonora). They include:
# Yuman Languages # Delta-Californian Languages # Cocopa # Kumiai (Diegueno) # River Yuman Languages # Maricopa # Mohave # Quechan (Yuma) # Upland Yuman Languages # Havasupai-Walapai-Yavapai # Paipai (Akwa'ala) # Cochimi # Kiliwa # Esselen # Karok-Shasta Languages # Karok # Palaihninan Languages # Achumawi # Atsugewi # Shasta # Chimariko # Pomo Languages # Western Pomo Languages # Central Pomo # Kashaya # Northern Pomo # Southern Pomo # Eastern Pomo # Southeastern Pomo # Northeastern Pomo # Salinan-Seri Languages # Chumash # Salinan # Seri # Tequistlatecan Languages # Lowland Chontal of Oaxaca # Sierra Chontal of Oaxaca # Washo
Iroquoian languages are spoken in the eastern US and southeast Canada. They include:
# Northern Iroquoian Languages # Central Iroquoian Languages # Tuscarora # Nottoway # Lake Iroquoian Languages # Mohawk-Oneida Languages # Mohawk # Oneida # Seneca-Onondaga Languages # Cayuga # Onondaga # Seneca # Huron/Wyandot # Laurentian # Susquehannock # Southern Iroquoian Languages # Cherokee (Tsalagi) Kiowa-Tanoan languages are spoken in the American Southwest and Southern Plains. They include:
# Kiowa # Tanoan Languages # Tewa (Tano) # Tiwa # Towa (Jemez)
The Mayan languages are spoken in Guatemala and southern Mexico, in the Yucatan peninsula. Mayan languages include:
# Cholan Languages # Ch'ol # Chontal de Tabasco # Chorti # Huastecan Languages # Chicomuceltec # Huastec # Kanjobal-Chujean Languages # Chujean Languages # Chuj # Tojolabal # Kanjobalan Languages # Jacaltec # Eastern Kanjobal # Western Kanjobal # Mocho # Quiche-Mamean Languages # Ixil-Mamean Languages # Aguacatec # Ixil # Mam # Tacanec # Tectitec # Greater Quichean Languages # Kekchi # Pocom Languages # Pokomam # Pocomchi # Quichean Languages # Achi # Cakchiquel # Quiche # Tzutujil # Sacapultec # Sipacapense # Uspantec # Tzeltalan Languages # Tzeltal # Tzotzil # Yucatecan Languages # Itza Maya # Lapandon # Maya Chan # Mopan Maya # Yucatan Maya
The Mixe-Zoque languages, Mixe, Zoque, and Popoluca, have not been definitively linked with any of the larger Mesoamerican language families. They are spoken in Mexico and include:
# Mixe # Zoque # Popoluca
poken in the American southeast, Muskogean languages include:
# Eastern Muskogean Languages # Muskogee (Creek) # Central Muskogean Languages # Alabama # Appalachee # Koasati # Mikasuki # Western Muskogean Languages # Chickasaw # Choctaw
Oto-Manguean languages are spoken in central Mexico and include:
# Amuzgo # Chiapanec-Mangue Languages # Chiapanec # Chorotega # Chinantec # Mixtecan Languages # Cuicatec # Mixtec # Trique # Otopamean Languages # Chichimec # Matlatzincan # Mazahua # Otomi # Pame # Chocho-Popolocan Languages # Chochotec # Popolocan # Ixcatec # Mazatec # Zapotecan Languages # Chatino # Zapotec
he relationships between the Penutian languages of the Pacific Coast are less certain and less well understood than in some of the other Amerindian language families. Some linguists consider the Penutian languages to constitute one rather divergent language family; others consider them a group of four to seven language families making up a broader linguistic stock; others consider them several distinct language families that should not be considered together at all; and some even think the Penutian languages should be grouped together with the Uto-Aztecan and/or the Mayan languages. In any event, languages that are usually discussed under this rubric include:
# Chinookan Languages # Chinook # Chinook Jargon # Kathlamet # Wasco-Wishram # Maidu # Oregon Penutian Languages # Coast Penutian Languages # Coos # Siuslaw # Alsea # Kalapuya # Takelma # Plateau Penutian Languages # Klamath-Modoc # Sahaptian Languages # Nez Perce # Sahaptin Languages # Umatilla/Tenino # Walla Walla # Yakima # Tsimshianic Languages # Nisga'a-Gitxsan # Tsimshian # Utian Languages # Costanoan (Ohlone) # Miwok # Yokuts # Molale # Wintu
Spoken in the northwestern US and southwestern Canada, Salish languages include:
# Coast Salish Languages # Central Salish Languages # North-Central Salishan Languages # Comox # Pentlatch # Sechelt # South-Central Salishan Languages # Straits Salishan Languages # Klallam # Northern Straits Salish (Saanich) # Halkomelem # Nooksack # Squamish # Lushootseed (Puget Sound Salish/Skagit/Snohomish) # Twana (Skokomish) # Tsamosan Languages # Inland Tsamosan Languages # Lower Chehalis # Quinault # Maritime Tsamosan Languages # Cowlitz # Upper Chehalis # Tillamook # Interior Salish Languages # Northern Interior Salishan Languages # Lillooet (St'at'imcets) # Shuswap (Secwepemctsin) # Thompson (Nlaka'pamux) # Southern Interior Salishan Languages # Coeur d'Alene # Flathead Salish/Kalispel/Spokane # Okanagan (Colville) # Wenatchi (Columbia) # Nuxalk (Bella Coola)
iouan languages are primarily spoken in the American Great Plains, and the far south of Canada. They include:
# Western Siouan Languages # Missouri Valley Siouan Languages # Crow # Hidatsa # Mississippi Valley Siouan Languages # Mandan # Dakotan Languages # Assiniboine (Nakota) # Stoney (Nakoda) # Dakota-Lakota # Dhegiha Languages # Kansa # Omaha-Ponca # Osage # Quapaw (Alkansea) # Chiwerean Languages # Chiwere (Iowa-Otoe-Missouria) # Ho-chunk (Winnebago) # Ohio Valley Siouan Languages # Biloxi # Ofo (Ofogoula) # Tutelo (Saponi) # Eastern Siouan Languages (Catawban) # Catawba # Woccon
Spoken throughout the western US and Mexico, the Uto-Aztecan languages include:
# Northern Uto-Aztecan Languages # Numic Languages # Central Numic Languages # Comanche # Panamint # Shoshone # Southern Numic Languages # Kawaiisu # Southern Paiute (Ute) # Western Numic Languages # Mono # Northern Paiute (Bannock) # Takic Languages # Cupan Languages # Cahuilla # Cupeno # Juaneno # Luiseno # Serran Languages # Kitanemuk # Serrano # Gabrielino # Tataviam # Hopi # Tubatulabal # Southern Uto-Aztecan Languages # Aztecan Languages # Nahuatl # Pipil # Taracahitic Languages # Guarijio # Mayo # Opata # Tarahumara # Yaqui # Tepiman Languages # Pima Bajo # Tepehuan # Tohono O'odham # Corachol Languages # Cora # Huichol # Tubar
Spoken along the coast in the northwestern US and southwestern Canada, Wakashan languages include:
# Northern Wakashan Languages # Haisla # Heiltsuk # Kwakiutl/Kwak'wala # Southern Wakashan Languages # Makah # Nootka
Other North American Indian Languages Not all Native American languages have been classified into a language family. Some may be language isolates (unrelated to any other language), others may be unclassifiable due to lack of data or insufficient attention from linguists. Native North American languages whose relationship to other Amerindian languages is still uncertain include: # Cayuse # Keres # Kootenai # Quileute # Tonkawa # Wappo # Yuchi # Yuki # Zuni
Other Central American Indian Languages Not all Native American languages have been classified into a language family. Some may be language isolates (unrelated to any other language), others may be unclassifiable due to lack of data or insufficient attention from linguists. Native Mesoamerican languages whose relationship to other Amerindian languages is still uncertain include: # Purepecha # Tol
Other South American Indian Languages Not all Native American languages have been classified into a language family. Some may be language isolates (unrelated to any other language), others may be unclassifiable due to lack of data or insufficient attention from linguists. Native South American languages whose relationship to other Amerindian languages is still uncertain include: # Andoque # Camsa # Cayubaba # Itonama # Mura-Pirah # Paez # Pankararu # Puelche # Puinave # Ticuna # Trumai # Tsimane # Tuxa # Warao # Vilela # Yamana # Yuracare Atlantic Free Press
I can't help but wonder if a link wouldn't have sufficed, though. Some of us don't have the fastest connections ... Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
As for the "everyone speaks" this or that language, refer to ghandhi's post. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
in Quebec where they speak French in order to piss off the federal government
I think this comment is just too funny for me to be offended by it. (Sorry Migeru, I support seperatists.)
Isn't everyone who speaks French just doing it to piss the rest of us off? LOL. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Sorry Migeru, I support seperatists.
I think you are reading much too much agenda into my piece. I tried to use satire to address what I saw as an opportunity to ask a question, a question a lot of people are going to be asking. What does "Europe" signify for us today? I was wanting your subjective take on the matter is all. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Honestly, what "Europe" signifies depends what you mean by Europe.
When you're done parsing that, would you mind explaining it to me? A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
The universal is "the other", "the danger", "the challenge."
The unity of the destiny symbolises the belief that "the people are one" and propelled (destiny) to confront the universal and conquer it. It emphasises exceptionalism too.
Admittedly, you can put non-fascist interpretations to these concepts, but it does seem to me to fit well with Franco and other famous fascists. At the same time you can see the psychological parallels with people like the Bush administration in this attitude.
The problem is that most of the "usefully objective" notions, be they geographical, economic or cultural all tend to exclude a few grey areas/peoples who I do not wish to exclude. I don't want to put the limit on what Europe can be through what it is now. (Especially culturally.)
[Turkey is a great example of this, it is definitely only partly European in culture and in organisation. But I like to think it can become part of Europe. And when it does, that changes what Europe is too, but I think those changes do not alter the essence of Europe, even if I cannot articulate that essence well.]
So, an attempt to state some of what Europe represents to me and maybe some others too:
It is "first world," a sense of prosperity and organisation.
[I guess the implication here is of a sense of modernity and a sense of a place to have a good life. Sadly, in the end some parts of the world don't have that association in our minds. I think Europe, generally, does. There are some other ideas here that I hesistate to state because I am not sure how universal they are, but I think there is something else to the modernity. Something about the relations between people and institutions? Corruption is limited in some ways? Religion is present for many people, but not allowed to dominate the public sphere? Already it gets contentious perhaps, but there is something there.]
It is a collection of nations/peoples. The states of the USA have lesser conscious history before the USA existed, the myth of China is of a nation reaching back into the mists of time. But Europe is clearly a coming together of proud, independent peoples of long and powerful lineage.
[To me, this has requirements in terms of tolerance and consensus. Europe necessarily has to deal with diversity in a different way to the US or China. The other issue is that in essence it seems to me to be a collection of small nations. This forces? implies? relationships with other nations. The US or China have large sections who dream of isolation, who would happily claim no need to leave the "mother country" for any single thing. Europe is not like that. At the big level it is business and trade, but at the individual level it is perhaps just tourism, but still, if you want some variety in your holidays and you live in Europe, you will have to leave your nation eventually...]
Can't you accept them to be both European and Asian? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
By the way, famously neutral Switzerland is not in the EU, nor do I think it is ever likely to be, but it is definitely in Europe. So... A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
For me, Europe is a geographical term more than anything else. The excerpt above that starts with "Geographically Europe is a part of..." best describes Europe as such.
This is true for me too - and when I read "center of Europe", I can only think of the geographical sense of "Europe". BTW, the Southeastern geographical border ambiguities shan't change the center much - the Caucasus Mountains - Kura river difference is only a 100 km wide strip, the Ural-Emba rivers idfference is roughly 500 km x 500 km, altogether a difference of 0.33 million km² - in a 10 million km² area.
You can visualise it on another relevant map from the Wiki article (here the Emba and Kura rivers are the borders; Georgia's and Azerbaijan's northern border is the Caucasus Mountains, the Ural river follows Russian-Kazakh border half-way East and then turns South):
II Europe, according to one commonly-reckoned definition II Extension over Asia of the continuous territory of a European state II Geographically in Asia, considered European for cultural and historical reasons *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It's insanity, I tell ya. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
If you overlay a general map of Eurasia with the specific types of maps above you would get broad pattern of agreement in-though not complete or perfect alignment by any means with-the general notion of Europe. That would just be a starting point for the more significant question, which I think that you are asking, which is, who are you people who live in this large area? Is there a set of commonalities between you that differentiate you in important ways from those of us who do not live there? If there is a set of commonalities is it a result of facts on the ground, or is it an outlook based on ideas?
From across the Atlantic, it looks more and more that an European identity is coming into being, again. From afar it appears that the history, the political organizations, and the economics are being expressed with a sufficient cohesion to at least superficially express a specific and identifiable grouping of people. In the dark hour we are going through here, we hope both that people can see all the things that we have in common that are not expressed on these maps, and that Europe, whatever it is, stands for enlightenment. "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
You will really learn to love all the info that can be mapped, and how it all integrates with econ, history, politics, etc.
Good luck on the journey. "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
Love the Clarence Thomas stab. ;) Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
In France, it wasn't the service vehicles so much as the surreal number of bunny rabbits witnessed upon touching down that gave me that "feeling" of Europe. Again ... the cute factor.
I decidedly did not feel like I was in Europe when I arrived at Sheremetevo ... Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Lets start with some great historical caricature maps of Europe (Click on the maps for a much bigger version and the source web site):
As for the Empires I'll just start with the Romans(section in pink) in year 1 and year 400:
In the year 800 version of the same map you can see the Moorish presence on Iberian Peninsula
Then you have the growth of the Ottoman Empire (purple), the Austrian and then Austro-Hungarian Empire (dark green) and the Russian empire (light green):
The post WWII Europe: The caption reads more or less: Zone of western influence, Pro-western states not aligned in 1945, States benefiting from the Marshall Plan, Neutral states, Zones of Soviet influence. The situation of Finland is then described in more detail.
Millennium Europe:
and how the EU maps onto that by year of membership, expected membership or, in the case of Turkey, membership negotiations:
Finally, Europe from a railway perspective - the way France is centered on Paris becomes quite apparent here (only major rail routes are on this map I couldn't find a more detailed map- maybe Dodo has some on hand for the next train blogging). Click on the map for a much larger version
I have one on my wall, but found only two slightly better maps of mainlines on on the web - but, unlike your EuRailPass map, they at least show Eastern Europe and the routes rather than straight lines. (Here is the first [very big!], below the second, click image for large version.)
However, Trainspotting Bükkes has a nice and growing set of railway country maps and maps of some 'dense' regions that show all lines in each country/region, now only the Baltics, Belarus, Russia and the Caucasus still missing. (Incidentally, they were made by a French-Russian.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It's about believing you're the seat of culture on the entire planet - even if more people spend money on Hollywood, they just don't do slow B&W films about peasant women during WWI poignantly losing their virginity anything like as well.
It's about believing that being nice and getting along with most people is better than exploding them into small pieces and raping their women. (And/or men.)
It's about real style and class and poise, instead of the pretend style and class and poise that having money but no taste gives you.
It's about ideals rather than realities - some of which are plausible, some of which are silly, but all of which hide under a very quiet fervour that the rest of the world hasn't realised is there yet.
I think Europe is in danger of believing its own propaganda. (Much like the US does.) We'd like to believe we're nicer and more civilised and that we own the moral high ground, especially wrt the rest of the world. But the reality may not be quite so simple.
Still, Europe is better than a lack of Europe. Imagine Europe without any Europe at all. It just wouldn't be the same, would it?
In order to belong to something, you have to have an idea of what that something is. One doesn't need to go as far as the nation-states did in definine & delineating identity, but until we all agree to live on a purley metaphysical plane, it will need to be done. Europe might be hesitant to do the "Self/Other" thing, but the rest of the world is not yet there. If you wont define "Europe," someone else will. Because Europe, whatever it is today, is going to come into conflict with places and ideas what are not Europe.
It is as though, in the wake of the 20th century, Europe seeks to avoid the traps of nationalism and tribalism by ignoring the whole subject of defining itself. Side-step boundary, cultural & political disputes by not placing import on them or by leaving it all open ended enough to be in a permanemt state of negotiation. Wonder if it will work? Sounds downright revolutionary to me...
Homework assignment for everyone: Read Benedict Anderson's "Imagined communities."
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Europe seeks to avoid the traps of nationalism and tribalism by ignoring the whole subject of defining itself.
You may be on to something there, but I don't think it works quite as you say. In fact Europeans (insofar as one can generalize, and minus a vocal minority) don't feel concerned by nationalism and tribalism (in the sense I take it you're using, of tribalism as a strong attachment and sense of belonging to one's group of origin). It's as though, having contributed to forming those concepts in history, and having particularly sacrificed at the altar of the nation, having well-nigh destroyed ourselves in two cataclysmic wars that grew out of nationalism/tribalism, we have emptied our heads of them. We are just as likely today to feel regional ties (or, as Sven suggests above, city ties), as ties to the nation-state. It may seem presumptuous, but I think we avoid the traps of nationalism, not by seeking or by conscious effort, but quite unconsciously because we have got past that point. (Yes, it does sound presumptuous, but I think there's truth in it.)
Whether that means that we may succeed in inventing something new, I don't know. We may not succeed. But there's, let's say, an open door...
(Sorry if this doesn't address the question in your diary, it's just a thought bouncing off your comment...)
Quite possible, probable even, (although I'd bet there's some subconscious work going on as well.) Well, all evolution is about reaction to environment and adaptation to need. I do see the creation of EU-type entities as a step in the evolutionary process.
I just propose that it's not so passive or inevitible as you might think. It's all a social construct, and someone is doing the constructing. And like I and others have said, there is a danger in accepting otherwise. Things like Manifest Destiny were also ideas accepted as just the natural progression of humankind. And nations accepted as having some kind of metaphysical bond holding its people together. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I don't know if what I'm saying applies more to West Europeans than to Central and Eastern Europeans. I'd be curious to hear what others think.
Side-step boundary, cultural & political disputes by not placing import on them or by leaving it all open ended enough to be in a permanemt state of negotiation. Wonder if it will work? Sounds downright revolutionary to me...
According to my friend Floyd Gecko, this is Canada's approach to the Quebec question, and he suggested that we do the same in Spain. I also though it was clever and revolutionary. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
Colour me interested, but (perhaps due to poor memory and not having the book to hand) a little confused too.
Here's a link that might explain all this better. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I hope to get time to make some comments a bit later on.
Réponse : tous les pays autour de la France.
Belgian joke about French. The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)
Whereas the UK...
Heehee! ;)
France only THINKS she's in the middle; the middle--by any measure, geographic, population, economy, is probably in Poland or Austria.
France thinks nothing - Jérôme does. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Of come on. Southwestern even if we only consider the EU. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The Decline And Fall Of Europe by Fareed Zakaria (WaPo) Cartoons and riots made the headlines in Europe last week, but a far less fiery event, the publication of an academic study, may shed greater light on the future of the continent. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), headquartered in Paris, released a report, "Going for Growth," that details economic prospects in the industrial world. It is 160 pages long and written in bland, cautious, scholarly prose. But the conclusion is clear: Europe is in deep trouble. These days we all talk about the rise of Asia and the challenge to America, but it may well turn out that the most consequential trend of the next decade will be the economic decline of Europe. It's often noted that the European Union has a combined gross domestic product that is approximately the same as that of the United States. But the E.U. has 170 million more people. Its per capita GDP is 25 percent lower than that of the United States, and, most important, that gap has been widening for 15 years. If present trends continue, the chief economist at the OECD argues, in 20 years the average U.S. citizen will be twice as rich as the average Frenchman or German. (Britain is an exception on most of these measures, lying somewhere between Continental Europe and the United States.) People have argued that Europeans simply value leisure more and, as a result, are poorer but have a better quality of life. That's fine if you're taking a 10 percent pay cut and choosing to have longer lunches and vacations. But if you're only half as well off as the United States, that will translate into poorer health care and education, diminished access to all kinds of goods and services, and a lower quality of life.
Cartoons and riots made the headlines in Europe last week, but a far less fiery event, the publication of an academic study, may shed greater light on the future of the continent. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), headquartered in Paris, released a report, "Going for Growth," that details economic prospects in the industrial world. It is 160 pages long and written in bland, cautious, scholarly prose. But the conclusion is clear: Europe is in deep trouble. These days we all talk about the rise of Asia and the challenge to America, but it may well turn out that the most consequential trend of the next decade will be the economic decline of Europe.
It's often noted that the European Union has a combined gross domestic product that is approximately the same as that of the United States. But the E.U. has 170 million more people. Its per capita GDP is 25 percent lower than that of the United States, and, most important, that gap has been widening for 15 years. If present trends continue, the chief economist at the OECD argues, in 20 years the average U.S. citizen will be twice as rich as the average Frenchman or German. (Britain is an exception on most of these measures, lying somewhere between Continental Europe and the United States.)
People have argued that Europeans simply value leisure more and, as a result, are poorer but have a better quality of life. That's fine if you're taking a 10 percent pay cut and choosing to have longer lunches and vacations. But if you're only half as well off as the United States, that will translate into poorer health care and education, diminished access to all kinds of goods and services, and a lower quality of life.
Funny, my diary a couple of days ago about the US having a lower GDP per capita, when adjusted for inequality, came from that same report. Wanker. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I was reading an analyst's report today and it made the usual dig about 'Europe's high welfare costs.'
I suppose it's because these are given to poor people. Which is a very bad thing, because it means the money isn't going to rich people, where it naturally belongs.
It's also completely different to Enron's corporate scamming, or Halliburton's naked corporate-welfare profiteering, or any of the other shams, crimes, swindles, cons, rip-offs and schemes that keep the corporate raiders happy on their unsustainably irrigated golf courses and private hunting and shooting parks.
by Oui - Feb 4 19 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Feb 419 comments
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 270 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2732 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2561 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments