Edward Snowden, Hero or Traitor?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll hold my hands up if I'm being ignorant here, but what would those be?

I am offering you a wider way of looking at history. Its all well and good that the little tiny "nations" of Europe think they're special. So did the Indian kingdoms. So did the chinese states. Europe is a distinct political entity, today, right now. Like the USA, or Russia, or China. The nations that make up Europe aren't. That was my point. All the side-tracking was just Europeans getting indignant.

This is your central point?

OK - I can engage with that, but reading it back into history is a fallacy. The US is composed of "States" but those states are much more similar than European Counties - they really have more in common with French "Departments" than with the Sovereign Nations of Europe.

As to Europe being a distinct political entity currently - no, it isn't. Europe makes up a close cultural grouping with a cultural core and a periphery, but then so does Latin America, or the Anglo-sphere, or the "White Dominions", which includes the UK.

Saying Europe is once political entity is rather like saying Canada, the UK and Australia are one political entity.

In reality what you have is a fairly close grouping which may or may not coalesce into a new Nation-State or break apart completely.

If the EU is a distinct political entity it has been a short-lived one which is quite possibly entering systemic collapse.

[Greyblades]

The EU has been a single entity since the concept of Christendom emerged. You're all just so in love with the combative histories of your different little states that you refuse to see it for what it is. I am willing to admit that, at this point, I could be justifiably accused of being persnickety about semantics but the vehemence with which Europeans oppose this notion is just great. You don't see it at all?

No, the same way you dont see such between you and the rest of the anglosphere. Or hell, how about you and the rest of the entire world.

[Greyblades]

GC, we will grudgingly accept we have the romans and christianity in common, we are one big europe in purely catagorical terms and we might even admit that occasionally.

Beyond that we have a historical based inclination to work apart from and against eachother and our only attempt to cooperate has become the festering tumor that is what was formally an economic union but is now an unelected irresposible club of wannabe dictators currently wasting our resources that we only put up with because of the money they generate.

As long as that entity exists in said state you will never ever have all the europeans on this board, or in the world for that matter, consider think of themselves as a united europe because that currently implies wanting to give all our power to the retarded frankenstien monster that is the EU, that is currently the only thing the majority of Europe will unequivacably rally against.

[HopAlongBunny]

You could make the same argument on the basis of commerce.
Nation-states=:>mercantilism Trans-national corporations=:>globalization.
Which would lead us back to Snowden. PRISM, the 5 Eyes etc as agents of social control necessary to a global production chain ie: mere national coercive actors are not up to the task of discipline when the shop-floor is international.

[HopAlongBunny]

I was just running together some stuff I was reading (oddly enough about colonization of Canada) and your posts.
To paraphrase his comments about special relationships and our British/French heritage: Look, when the money dried up they were gone and could care less; minor parts of empire remain minor concerns and are cut loose without a thought.
The attitude fits nicely with a transnational viewpoint.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I leave my computer for three hours to attend my philosophy class and I come back only to say: What the hell happened here?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU has been a single entity since the concept of Christendom emerged. You're all just so in love with the combative histories of your different little states that you refuse to see it for what it is. I am willing to admit that, at this point, I could be justifiably accused of being persnickety about semantics but the vehemence with which Europeans oppose this notion is just great. You don't see it at all?

I see how you're drawing this conclusion - but you fail to appreciate that the convergence of European culture is VERY modern outside the elite.

You need to look at, for example, the differences between our legal systems, our attitudes to law and order, our gender-roles.

Two examples:

1. Italian Courts - they are, from a Germanic perspective, utterly laughable. All the accused has to do is make sure the trial and subsequent appeals drag on until the expiration date and he gets off, no punishment. The most shocking part, from a Germanic perspective, is that Italians are ok with that. Beating the system, from criminal law to taxes, is a fundamental part of Italian culture. Likewise - the relationships of kinship and clientia are more important than keeping your word. Something I found out when I smashed down a door in a hostel in Rome (don't ask), the owner told me he'd send me the bill (never did) that if he called the carpenter he would say he'd come tomorrow, but he might not come until next week because his brother might have a job for him or.... etc.

2. Democracy - is not a universal European virtue, historically, England has had a parliament of the "Commons" for a long time, which has always had a hand in government. France has vacillated between warring Dukedoms and absolute monarchy, the various Italian City-States have had varying constitutions, some recognisably democratic, others autocracies, the Papal States were a theocracy....

Contrast this with your US - where every state has the same basic organisation, same basic legal system.

We share common cultural elements - aside from that we are distinct peoples, the very fact that we do speak different languages demonstrates how different we are, how we are naturally divergent.

You were a soldier, so I would imagine you've spent at least some time in Europe, but I don't think you grasp how very different this Continent is to the US.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All of that is totally true. But consider that until equally recently, it was only the opinion of the elite that mattered. The ideals of liberalism that fractured that old way of thinking was also a result of common European themes. Its not like the French just up and revolted out of the blue.

Those common cultural elements are far more important in the global scheme of things than the tiny little differences that keep Europe fractured.

Like I've said many times before, Europeans, for the most part, have more in common with each other than they do with us.[/QUOTE]

That's only true because the US has diverged from the rest of "European" Civilisation to such a degree from the late 19th Century onward's, the British have more in common with the Australians than the French, both have more in Common with the Canadians than the US, but we have more in common with the US than the Italians.

Your problem is that you're reading back from the US onto Europe when the US is an Anglo-French conglomeration with other peoples added in. If the Italians had settled the Continental US your means of Government, the flavour of your culture would be different. Likewise, the "European" Civilisation in Asia etc. is essentially Anglo-French, latterly via the US.

That same culture has then been exported back into Europe - modern Italy and Germany have been influence by the American, British, and French settlements after WWII which is why they now seem much closer to those countries than they were previously.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I understood what you were saying GC I only didn't join in because I was editing my speeches about everyone in this thread being a status quo whore. But then the thread topic shifted and I had to go to class to learn about Socrates's argument against the Hedonism of The Many from the Gorgias.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lots of people understood my surface argument, but misunderstood the intent and thus missed all the subtlety. That's largely due to my trollish approach (I can't resist hitting Europeans where it hurts, sorry). I'll lay out the whole theory in a more rational and coherent way some day, and let you people pick it apart correctly.

Hey man, it's just like my friend says sometimes, "Somedays you gotta get up on that podium and let them know what's up and other days you just gotta sit down and skeet."

[Papewaio]

How can you say they failed? The USA is full of mostly white Europeans, and certainly run by mostly white Europeans. Ditto Australia. All of the nations of South America were built on the European model (after they had been bled dry, of course).

I'm not saying they sat down in the late 1400s and said "Alright guys, this is it--we're taking over this crap." I'm saying that Europeans are the only ones who could have done it, accidentally or otherwise, the way that it happened.

There is literally only one other example of a "Nation" that had a chance to do something like this, and that would be China. They chose not to, for reasons we'll never know.

I think you are still mistaking technology and disease for morals and tactics.

If you think China has a different moral direction towards outsiders you are wrong. The Chinese name for China is Zhongguo, it essentially means central whilst all surrounding countries were/are barbarians.

China was exploring, was trading, was invading. What stopped it all isn't a mystery it was well documented arrogance and politics. Essentially a key political group decided they knew everything and that exploration was expensive, not a good return on investment and that any new knowledge might undermine their all knowing beliefs.

Over nations that have invaded throughout history other nations include the Mongols, Polynesians and South Americans. Most of these took over their lands from older technology weaker nations. Maori of New Zealand for instance are Polynesian group who due to a superior technology suite wiped out (and ate) the prior indegionous Moa Hunters.

It's a fact that whoever had a technology advantage has used it. Only thing that holds it back is internal disunity. There is no moral high or low ground for the Europeans just a fortunate mix of geography. If the Native Americans immune system had exposure to African-European-Asian diseases they might still be the majorities in their countries.

It's not morals its luck.

[Papewaio]

From a Civ point of view (Sid's that is) EU should be a single choice much like India or China is. Mind you in that format US should just be part of the EU collective.

[Papewaio]

Just remember for a lot of Europeans the US-UK alliance is seen as an Anglo-Saxon alliance.

It's not helped that the five eyes are US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ.

All should/could be a single CIV faction... Just no where as cool as Poland in Space.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hate people like you guys. Civ should have as many factions as possible, not trying to consolidate them. Fricken casuals man.

[Tellos Athenaios]

They had a technological advantage. The Chinese decision to close up shop to the world was not exactly an enlightened one, but it is not a decision Europeans would have ever made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

Splendid Isolation.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's cool. I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying that empirically, objectively, without the bias of giving a damn about "national" pride, Europeans are all the same. You speak different languages, that's it. The European peninsula is kind of like the Indian subcontinent in that regard, I guess. Which makes it even wierder that the British object so strongly to the idea of Europeans being Europeans.

Anyway, here's what I was gonna edit into the post up there:

Look, I just want to clarify here. I'm not trying to demean Europeans or re-write history. History as it is written is pretty good. But it is also often missing the point. What matters is when cultures clash. When entire peoples clash. When entire peoples are overwritten, disappeared, or moved. On such a scale, ever since Rome fell, individual European nations have almost never mattered. It has been European civilization against all other forms of civilization. America is European civilization. European civilization is all that is left. It won. Not just the individual countries, but the entire culture and way of life.

I'm not demeaning Europeans at all. Quite the opposite. I think our conquering ancestors should be thought of as great conquerors first and foremost. Like sea-faring Mongol hordes. I'd give a limb to be able to travel forward a thousand years and read the history books.

That would the great conquering peoples of India and Indonesia, Africa and the Americas? I think you seem to be missing the point of just how the Europeans were successful despite being vastly outnumbered and with no way to call for backup: they had local allies. Or rather they were the enforcers for local alliances, which is much the same: Europeans exchanged technological and military advantage for trade and political concessions. Only in the late 19th century does that turn into conquest and rule, and even then they use the local peoples to subjugate other local peoples and often left the job of ruling mostly to local petty lords.

[Greyblades]

I leave my computer for three hours to attend my philosophy class and I come back only to say: What the hell happened here?

It's merely what happens when brits start arguing collectivism(or whatever -ism this is) at 2 in the morning.

That's cool. I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying that empirically, objectively, without the bias of giving a damn about "national" pride, Europeans are all the same. You speak different languages, that's it. The European peninsula is kind of like the Indian subcontinent in that regard, I guess. Which makes it even wierder that the British object so strongly to the idea of Europeans being Europeans.

Except for all your protestations, europeans are not all the same, we speak different languages, eat different foods, appreciae different trends in music at differnet times, there are racial differences between "white" nations in the north and "latino" nations in the south. We treat our families and friends differently, in the north an insult to one's mother is brushed off, in the south it's taken so seriously it causes intergenerational vendettas. In the north and west of Europe racism is considered its own taboo, in the east it's political capital. Open Jew haters in the west are ostracised, in the east they are prominent government parties.
To the rest of the world we might seem as one unanimous entity out to get them, and we might be closer to eachother than anyone else but to a Briton, a Frenchman or a German, serbia, greece, russia, are all foreign countries and certainly different enough to refuse to allow them any control over us willingly.

It is especially true for Britain because we have spent the last thousand years waging wars to prevent that, to roll over to Brussles without so much as a fight is the greatest betrayal we could make to our heritage. Think the amount of historical betrayal america would commit if they meekly transferred all thier power to a British King without so much as a wimper in defiance.

Now imagine it happened after 1000 years and hundreds of failed invasion attempts by said British Kings.

They had a technological advantage. The Chinese decision to close up shop to the world was not exactly an enlightened one, but it is not a decision Europeans would have ever made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He

...Dude, you ever heard of Switzerland?

[Husar]

Except for all your protestations, europeans are not all the same, we speak different languages, eat different foods, appreciae different trends in music at differnet times, there are racial differences between "white" nations in the north and "latino" nations in the south.

Hamburgers, pizzas and European fries are not "different foods". Other than that similar differences also exist between Wisconsin, Oregon and Louisiana, yet they're all part of the USA and mostly proud of it, too.

The languages are a small "problem" but not an insurmountable one, Belgium and Switzerland both have people speaking three different languages and yet they're united in one single country. You and I speak different languages and yet we can communicate because I'm flexible enough to adapt.

[Pannonian]

You and I speak different languages and yet we can communicate because I'm flexible enough to adapt.

True. There's nothing wrong with speaking foreign languages, as long as one speaks English as well.

[Ironside]

Right. Which is a very different approach than, say, Zheng He up there (or, rather, the people he was representing--Zheng He acted very un-chinese on his voyages, probably because he wasn't very Chinese himself). European adventuring (and, by extension, American adventuring) is a special kind of adventuring.

For reference: Name another block that you consider be as equal as Europeans.

I do find the notion about a historical unified Europe, when a large chunk of that "unified drive" is speculated to come from the constant rivalry and the need to be one step a head of your enemies.

[Brenus]

“in the north an insult to one's mother is brushed off, in the south it's taken so seriously it causes intergenerational vendettas”: Err, you probably don’t understand the local language in the south. Ask our Serbian Friend what is the favourite insult/swearing in Serbian and its translation, and you might have a surprise… Of course he can't as it would cost him a "notification" for bad language.

“europeans are not all the same” nor the USAnians as a French who travelled long time ago from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City can witness. They speak the same language, true…

“we have spent the last thousand years waging wars to prevent that”. This can be said for almost all European Countries. England is probably the last country falling entirely to the yoke of a foreign ruler (William), nearly lost it identity.
The last battle (against Foreigners others than the Scott) on English soil is 1217 (battle of Lincoln), but you had a (small) French Army in Ireland in 1798. I do not count small raids on the coast, nor the incursion of the Dutch Fleet in London.
Then the Royal family is from German Origin, whose Coat of Arm is written in French with French Symbols.

[HoreTore]

Hamburgers, pizzas and European fries are not "different foods". Other than that similar differences also exist between Wisconsin, Oregon and Louisiana, yet they're all part of the USA and mostly proud of it, too.

The languages are a small "problem" but not an insurmountable one, Belgium and Switzerland both have people speaking three different languages and yet they're united in one single country. You and I speak different languages and yet we can communicate because I'm flexible enough to adapt.

Turn the clock back a few centuries, and you'd be hard pressed to find a single European country without a zillion different languages, where few of them understood each other. France is the stand-out example of course, but countries like Spain or the UK weren't that far behind.

The ruling classes all spoke French, though. I guess that helped.

[Montmorency]

Its all well and good that the little tiny "nations" of Europe think they're special.

Be real here, Europe... you're special. Admit it.

Europe is a distinct political entity, today, right now. Like the USA, or Russia, or China. The nations that make up Europe aren't. That was my point. All the side-tracking was just Europeans getting indignant.

Er, no, you were talking specifically about the early modern period, not about the political situation of contemporary Europe. That's what the entire debate was about...

I'm pretty sure we all agree that Europe today tries to project a unified foreign policy, though that still ignores the outsized mercantile power of Germany (with respect to China and India and Russia) today. And it would be dangerous to assume that Europe can not fracture in the future, that we can not ever have France + USA vs. UK + China vs. Germany + Russia...

Its a pretty weak definition either way. I would say the USA is no nation-state under his requirements, because the Corporations are autonomous bases of power that move across national borders and scheme at will

Um, no. The definition specifically excludes firms, churches, and kinship groups. The US is still a national state because it quite clearly has priority within its territory over all "corporations", no matter what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe. What multinationals pose for the future of the national state is of course a matter of debate - but not really relevant to either our definitions or our discussion at large.

I'm just saying that empirically, objectively, without the bias of giving a damn about "national" pride, Europeans are all the same.

Which you still have not substantiated.

On such a scale, ever since Rome fell, individual European nations have almost never mattered. It has been European civilization against all other forms of civilization. America is European civilization. European civilization is all that is left. It won. Not just the individual countries, but the entire culture and way of life.

So you read Huntington and bought into it, huh?

And I'm not so sure how well England or France fits it.

No, no, we're still talking about the early-modern period as far as I can tell. Historically speaking: the two above were the first to develop along those lines, and thus they were able to wage war more efficiently, and the political concessions that were linked with the improvements in efficiency led to the era of mass-mobilization (which ended the era of mercenary armies), which forced other European states to adopt these models to some extent, which were spread throughout the world via Anglo-French colonialism in the late 19th c., and which were adopted to a large degree by virtually every state in the world following WW2 - in a nutshell.

Are you sure the term "capitalized coercion" doesn't ring a bell?

If that is your definition, then China fits that bill perfectly.

China is an interesting case in that it has fluctuated continually between the three forms for millenia, probably owing in part to its size; England and France on the other hand became progressively more national over the Medieval and early modern period. With increasing (native) mercantile activity in various parts of China, central control weakened, as is expected for empires and city-states: strong commercial activity tends to produce city-states or similar agglomerations of fragmented sovereignty. In Europe meanwhile, more commercial activity in England and France led to the central authority enforcing cooperation between the merchants and the nobility, while appropriating the resources of both to increase their own war-making capacity. In European city-states such as Venice, however, the merchants subordinated the landlords, and in empires such as Poland, landlords subordinated the merchants. Chinese typical imperial levies were certainly not comparable to the mass-mobilization of citizenry that we can see, for example, in Napoleonic France; don't conflate mass with [I]massive[I] mobilization, or else we'll have to include the Persian Empire of Antiquity. It's also important to recall that mass mobilization accompanied the extension of increasing numbers of privileges to the citizenry, as well as acquiescence to demands from the citizenry for deeper state intervention in the economy and for the cause of equitable adjudication. Furthermore, China was never very strongly unified and remained far more feudal than, say, 18th or even 17th c. England or France. There were many semi-autonomous nobles doing their own thing in China even as the English bureaucracy grew its remit to encompass all corners of the realm, for instance; that is to say, national states replaced indirect rule through local magnates owing nominal loyalty with direct rule through local representatives of the national government itself, which China only rarely attempted to do and in a limited, typically unsuccessful/short-lived fashion at that.

I'd say Pax Romana

By-the-book empire. Led directly to feudal Europe. Next you'll be saying Imperial Russia was a national state? Bulky bureaucratic apparati for the purpose of military organization and maintenance are a classic feature of empires, and stem from inherent imperial instability.

EDIT: I'll probably have better opportunity to expound further on this in a response, but I should have mentioned more than obliquely is that one important factor of transition to national-statehood is the civilianization of administrative structures and purposes. So yes, many of the states in the developing world post-WW2 could habe been or still be called national-states in name only; what is important is that they adopted the surface organization of European (i.e. Anglo-French) states, pretty much universally.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Right. Which is a very different approach than, say, Zheng He up there (or, rather, the people he was representing--Zheng He acted very un-chinese on his voyages, probably because he wasn't very Chinese himself). European adventuring (and, by extension, American adventuring) is a special kind of adventuring.

Only in scale of the expedition, but not really in terms of objectives. Removing pirates, forging new trade & military alliances, reaffirming and refining existing knowledge of geography and topology, and displays of nautical might? How about the Portuguese?

[Kadagar_AV]

Estonia, former part of Soviet Union...
Turkey, an Islamist state...
Switzerland, with their neutrality...
England, the former colonial empire...

This is just 4 examples of national identity. I see GC's point though, and he is not all wrong.

There IS a European identity, just that it isn't "European", it's racial. A European Swede of course feel closer to a white USAnian compared towards a European guy from Turkey.

GC's point only made sense to me when I read "Europe" as the "Western White World". And yes, the western white world tend to bicker amongst itself until a common enemy can been found.

[Greyblades]

“in the north an insult to one's mother is brushed off, in the south it's taken so seriously it causes intergenerational vendettas”: Err, you probably don’t understand the local language in the south. Ask our Serbian Friend what is the favourite insult/swearing in Serbian and its translation, and you might have a surprise… Of course he can't as it would cost him a "notification" for bad language.

When I said south I mean spain and Italy, not the balkans.

“europeans are not all the same” nor the USAnians as a French who travelled long time ago from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City can witness. They speak the same language, true…

What's your point?

“we have spent the last thousand years waging wars to prevent that”. This can be said for almost all European Countries. England is probably the last country falling entirely to the yoke of a foreign ruler (William), nearly lost it identity.

Debatable, considering we actually asked william to invade and most of us supported his "invasion". Also we didnt lose our identity, not even close.

The last battle (against Foreigners others than the Scott) on English soil is 1217 (battle of Lincoln), but you had a (small) French Army in Ireland in 1798. I do not count small raids on the coast, nor the incursion of the Dutch Fleet in London.

And again, your point? All that seems to point out is that we were so successful we didnt get a foriegn enemy on our soil for 800 years, we fought off enemy invaders before they made land almost every time someone tried.

Then the Royal family is from German Origin, whose Coat of Arm is written in French with French Symbols.

We changed from scottish/english kings to scottish/english/german kings... and? Different Kings, same parliament, same country. Again, what exactly is your point here?

[Greyblades]

Ok then, I see his/your point as you have said it, so what is your argument?

[Greyblades]

Yup. It's also prevelant, quite hard to shift, and arguable that it needs addressing.

[Kadagar_AV]

His point is that all European countries have these intricate nationalistic histories that just so happen to be totally inter-dependent with other supposedly intricate nationalistic histories. All the little pieces hold the whole concept together.

All of these European "states" had the same idea of what constituted a "Barbarian" or the "Other." Once again, the Indian subcontinent is a good cultural comparison. Tons of languages, identities, and conflicting views of the past. Lots of regional "nationalism" that goes back hundreds of years. I would say, in many cases, that the differences they overcame were much deeper than the ones Europeans are still trying to overcome.

When?

No really, when did India overcome their differences? The last place I was to in India, 2 years ago, had quite clear social distinctions between Marathi speakers and the "others".

There are more than 30 languages spoken by people measured in the millions, and the nation does not have an official language.

So, when you say they overcame their differences, I just very mildly question "In what regards?"

The different cultural groups speak different languages and opt for different positions in the society's hierarchy, is what I understood from my visit. I am quite flabbergasted to understand you have such a different viewpoint!

[Kadagar_AV]

They overcame them by submitting to one government. That's the reality that they acknowledge, while still enjoying their petty differences when they can. To be fair, they only got to this point because of brutal imperialism, but hey... what does that suggest about the future of Europe?

Overcome = submitting?

The historian in me revolts...

There is a rather big gap between a culture overcoming something and submitting to something. I agree with you that they are submitted though, just like Yugoslavia.

But see, Yugoslavia was submitted. I stress to add that they in no way had overcome their cultural grievances though.