Edward Snowden, Hero or Traitor?

[rajpoot]

How is it telling? For all you know they won't give him asylum because they're scared of us.

That is most certainly why India has denied him asylum. Scared, or just plain bootlicking I don't know. What I do know is that the current government disgusts me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Awww Europeans are upset because I offered a wider perspective? Adorable.

Before any more of you question my grasp of history, maybe you should re-read my post. Obviously Europe has never been a centralized state, but economically and culturally it has been Europe against the World since the Romans. To think of yourselves as independent countries is silly--you're only individual within the context of an untouchable and separate Europe. And everything the USA did is European, obviously. The USA is what Europe would look like if you all spoke the same language and submitted to the same government.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It must be irritating having those people from accross the sea tell you that your nations are so small, weak, and powerless that we spy on them at will. That their customs and cultures are laughable. That their nations aren't even nations!

Hmmm...

Ah - so the same is true of the Near East, yes?

Until very recently (post renaissance) there was no "world" beyond Europe, the Near East, Middle East and Far East. You're engaging in reductio ad absurdem because the fact that Europeans either fought against each other or together against the Muslims and Mongols is a matter of religion and the range of our ships.

As soon as we were able, we started fighting everyone else, and we exported our wars and our individuality - that why South America is different to North America.

[The Lurker Below]

Awww Europeans are upset because I offered a wider perspective? Adorable.

Before any more of you question my grasp of history, maybe you should re-read my post. Obviously Europe has never been a centralized state, but economically and culturally it has been Europe against the World since the Romans. To think of yourselves as independent countries is silly--you're only individual within the context of an untouchable and separate Europe. And everything the USA did is European, obviously. The USA is what Europe would look like if you all spoke the same language and submitted to the same government.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It must be irritating having those people from accross the sea tell you that your nations are so small, weak, and powerless that we spy on them at will. That their customs and cultures are laughable. That their nations aren't even nations!

Hmmm...

At least when you go for demeaning, you make certain you are all inclusive. So we now go back and tell all those indigenous tribes that they are not their own separate nation. All those states never had any sovereignty. It's no longer enough to have your own language and overlords, you must now have a separate and distinct national persona? Is there some official measurement of what that takes? I thought having watches or cheeses named after your region would be enough? Personally this irritates me a tiny bit because I keep the dream that some day Texas will declare their independence. Not so much that I want Texas out of the union, but because I want the Californians to follow suit.

[Montmorency]

Europe has always acted as a whole against the world in national affairs, despite itself.

Just so things don't get muddled: your assertion is that European states individually have no meaningful extra-European foreign policy?

Where Europe has acted as a group, it acted that way because of its culture and its people, not its boundaries or borders.

Geography plays no small role in shaping culture...

[HoreTore]

Remember that you're discussing mostly with brits here, GC. The british fool themselves into thinking that they are somehow different from the rest of Europe, and worship their own imagined uniqueness. I'd say that actually goes beyond what you yanks put into the concept of american exceptionalism.

Talk to someone from central europe, and they'll agree with you. I'm willing to bet that Louis or Adrian would've jumped to your defence if they had been around.

[Rhyfelwyr]

GC I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "Europe has acted as a group". Outside relatively modern innovations like the EU, there has been little cooperation between the kingdoms, states, nation states etc of Europe throughout history. Of course the idea of a homogenous nation state is more an ideal than a reality, but it has been quite close to reality at times in the past. And even besides nation states, for all the various other forms of statehood that have existed in Europe, there has not been any sort of political entity at the European-level.

Maybe you had things like the Berlin Conference or the Congress of Vienna in mind? I'll grant that these were significant, but such organisation never developed into an institutionalized political process, and is hardly outside the norm for international cooperation.

It also seems a bit odd for an American to mock Europe for its heritage. Natives aside, of course.

[Montmorency]

Of course it does, but geographical boundaries change.

Over millions of years. (You know what I'm talking about.)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Its not that hard to get. I'm talking about cultural conventions. European culture has been distinct and combative since the early middle ages. God, European civilization, the Roman Legacy, and a total disdain for lesser peoples' is what made the Europeans unique. All the little subdivisions are beside the point, in a global context.

I'm not pointing fingers or trying to make you guys look bad--after all, most Americans won't even admit that we're just the left-overs from that mind-set.

Euoprean culture has only ever exited in a very vague and loose sense. It's like talking about African culture, Asian culture or the like. I hardly see how God can be a focal point of European culture, since in broad terms we share a monotheistic God with most of the world, and in the more particular sense, we've butchered ourselves because we've got different ideas about him. The Roman legacy is not directly relevant to Germany, Eastern Europe, or the UK. As for racism/xenophobia, it is more a human trait than anything, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of the world is pretty racist.

So I believe that all these things that you say make Europeans unique, in fact do no such thing, and half the time aren't even shared 'European' traits in the first place.

[The Lurker Below]

Its not that hard to get. I'm talking about cultural conventions. European culture has been distinct and combative since the early middle ages. God, European civilization, the Roman Legacy, and a total disdain for lesser peoples' is what made the Europeans unique. All the little subdivisions are beside the point, in a global context.

I'm not pointing fingers or trying to make you guys look bad--after all, most Americans won't even admit that we're just the left-overs from that mind-set.

Have you been playing Fortress America? It's pretty old and never was popular, so I suspect not, but your world-view reminds me of that games central theme.

I guess only Europeans had the influence of religion, Romans, and racial superiority.

[HopAlongBunny]

But you're addressing one point-of-view. Mainly that of the elite that bemoans and derides "local" culture and mourns the passing of Rome.
Granted, the bestowal of a common MacCulture would simplify a lot of problems, but it would also make everywhere the same. Boring I call it.
What does this have to do with Snowden? No idea :p

[Lemur]

All cultures are traditonally insular and distrustful of "barbarians" but only the Europeans decided they all had to be crushed underfoot.

One of my favorite takes on this subject:

[The Lurker Below]

Snowden? He's a boring humbug. Here's a guy who sent forth a significant message and then decided to betray the message by seeking a personal spotlight. Most heroes seek no personal glory. He has not lent credibility to his message, he has detracted from it.

[Fisherking]

Only Europeans had the balls to take the notion of "We're the best." and actually go with it. All cultures are traditonally insular and distrustful of "barbarians" but only the Europeans decided they all had to be crushed underfoot.

I refer you once again to China. They rounded the Horn of Africa with a fleet larger and better Armed than the Spanish Armada centuries later. They made a choice not to colonize or project their power across the whole world. Be real here, Europe... you're special. Admit it.

And what does any of this have to do with America spying on Americans and the rest of the world?

Are you blaming Europe? Have you gone all Euro-phobic on us? Is it time for your meds?

[Montmorency]

GC, can you guarantee that all European states had substantial colonizing ventures ongoing at some point, or that no autonomous Christian-European state ever allied with a Muslim power?

[Pannonian]

Its not that hard to get. I'm talking about cultural conventions. European culture has been distinct and combative since the early middle ages. God, European civilization, the Roman Legacy, and a total disdain for lesser peoples' is what made the Europeans unique. All the little subdivisions are beside the point, in a global context.

I'm not pointing fingers or trying to make you guys look bad--after all, most Americans won't even admit that we're just the left-overs from that mind-set.

I think what you're advancing would be easier to swallow as well as understand, if you said that all Europeans think in a similar way, whose differences are insignificant when seen from an outsider's perspective. I think that would be largely accurate, as seen in the distinct bloc that's variously called the First World, western countries, etc.

[Pannonian]

Yes, but the first world is a result of that unified European direction. The entire first world is a result of Europe acting for Europe, even when it was Europeans acting against Europeans. That's my darn point.

Not just the First World War, although it was the most concentrated debating ground for the most eloquent and expansive debaters in the world. Various schools of philosophy had flourished in the European countries, in a way possibly unequalled before in history barring the Warring States in China. Whereas someone managed to unify the Chinese kingdoms into a single identity, the post-Napoleonic settlement went for a balance of power (and before Napoleon, no-one had the strength to even think of unifying Europe). So all the debating was either confined to their own countries, or tested abroad outside Europe, where there was no risk of upsetting the agreed to balance of power. Debating topics such as liberal democracy, socialism, how many people we can kill and how can we kill more in less time, etc.

[Fisherking]

Yes, but the first world is a result of that unified European direction. The entire first world is a result of Europe acting for Europe, even when it was Europeans acting against Europeans. That's my darn point.

The first world war was a family feud by a bunch of inbreed monarchs. It had little to do with nationalism otter than the propaganda

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wishful thinking. You can say "Not us, look at them!" all you like, but the fact is that only Europe (yes, Europe, not just the individual countries) colonized the whole world. That means you need to look at yourselves separately.

Wishful thinking has nothing to do with it, since I don't feel the need to defend the actions of past Europeans. Speaking of personal motivations here, sometimes you strike me as having a bit of a white-guilt complex. It's one thing to acknowledge various wrongs committed by European powers; quite another to suggest that European are uniquely evil or malicious, far less that it should be a defining point of their identity.

That Europe should play such a significant role in colonization is due to demographic and technological factors that were particular to the time centuries ago. We've gone through a lot since then so you can't just presume that we have retained the same mind-set.

Other peoples/states around the world have colonized just as aggressively as 'Europeans', as far as their circumstances have allowed. Consider Arabs/Muslims on the southern fringes of the Sahel or down the East Coast of Africa. Chinese in Tibet, Xinjiang, Indonesia, or indeed modern day Africa. Imperial Japan. 'Americans' in Liberia. Pagan Vikings in Vinland. Altaic peoples in Russia, the Ukraine and the Caucasus. Indians in Kenya, South Africa, Fiji, Guyana and the like.

You need to stop hating yourself.

[Papewaio]

IMDHO it isn't culture that made Europeans take over the world. Wars between countries have happened outside of Europe. It's pretty much throughout the world that there has been cultures fighting with each other. China is China because of war between thirteen kingdoms plus change. Modern India was once many more nation states fighting each other.

What allowed Europe to take over was technology and disease. One or maybe both an accident of geography.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So on the original topic. It has become apparent that in order for a whistleblower to not have his ego get in the way, he should release his information to the proper authorities who will then properly clean it of the most crucial stuff that the administration will call "state secrets", then proceed to sit at home and not do any interviews and wait for his inevitable arrest and execution/life imprisonment in a camp in Cuba.

THAT WILL GET THE PEOPLE ORGANIZED TO FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT

[Fisherking]

Not the first world war, the first world.

Then that would be the industrial revolution. There is a higher degree of high cultural appreciation in most of Europe but there is no real unity of thought. Certain ideas and ideals became popular from the American and French Revolutions allowing a degree of nationalism to take hold but there is still a great deal of division and rivalry between regions and peoples.

In terms of what you are talking about it is only England, France, and Spain that were serious players. Germany and Austria were relative late comers.

What is seen from the US and even to an extent by the UK is very myopic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In terms of what you are talking about it is only England, France, and Spain that were serious players. Germany and Austria were relative late comers.

Poor Portugal, no one ever remembers your empire.

[Fisherking]

ACIN, for some reason I can’t thank your post, only give you and infraction, (geez).

But thank you!

[Pannonian]

What is seen from the US and even to an extent by the UK is very myopic.

The UK is not myopic. It's not our fault that the rest of the world fails to match our perspective.

[Fisherking]

Poor Portugal, no one ever remembers your empire.

I left them out and a couple of others, but they were never a serious power.

[Pannonian]

I left them out and a couple of others, but they were never a serious power.

The Dutchies and the Portuguese were probably on a par.

[Fisherking]

They all contributed in their own way. The nations that weren't sea-going powers still had massive economic and political inter-dependencies with the nations that were.

Not until the industrial revolution and for the most part that was post US Civil War, and by then the US began making inroads, so, no.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I left them out and a couple of others, but they were never a serious power.

True, true. But they were really the first to say (in India at first), "if we can't get what we want through trade, by god we have the guns to take it." I like to think of them as a proof of concept of colonialism which others adopted on a more grand and efficient scale.

Also, many thanks for your thanks.

[Montmorency]

It's interesting to note here that two of the top colonizers - UK and France - had quite different approaches.

The UK colonized through private ventures, particularly mercantile, that were backed up by direct state governance years or decades later.

The French colonized as coordinated state ventures as a rule, sending in the military first to pave the way for colonists on the tail.

But such niceties don't interfere with your point, huh?

Along Pannonian's line: you would be better off restating your case as that European cultures have been less insular than their contemporaries (while admitting that politics, technology and geography are what permitted the exercise of this outgoingness, if not engendered it in the first place).

To be honest, I'm having trouble seeing the fine line between which your words are neither truisms nor almost certainly false.

[a completely inoffensive name]

God damn it, I want to rout the statists in this backroom not relive my 1550-1965 history class.

I smell a new thread breaking off.