4 ms·

Well, Europe has different dynamics, rooted in ancient times... and a lot of inertia. It's hard to steer all people in a certain direction, especially from qui

by Nux 14y ago

Well, Europe has different dynamics, rooted in ancient times... and a lot of inertia. It's hard to steer all people in a certain direction, especially from quite different cultures. We're not Europeans; we're Romanians, Greeks, French, Cypriots and so on. We have a sense of belonging, not to each other, but to our individual nations. It is a "hodgepodge", but we must keep it together somehow. What happened last century must never happen again. I'm really keeping my fingers crossed for the EU; not necessarily for my generation, but for my kids and grankids. USA on the other hand is an "engineered" country, people got there relatively recently and said "Ok, that's it, let's do things this way". Of course you will see more homogeneity and agreement. And nationalism actually helps keep stuff together instead of dividing people.

Swizec 14y ago
Remember, most of our countries formed in the 19th and early 20th century. Before that Germans for instance were Prussians, Bohemians, Moravians, Bavarians and so on. (39 states) The French for instance only commonly adopted the same language in 1914. (When literacy rates were high enough for everyone to know French instead of regional languages). Most countries in Europe were the same less than 200 years ago. I can easily see us being Europeans 100 years from now. I know Slovenians (where I'm from) still considered it a novelty to think of themselves as Slovenians as late as the 1840's.
- Nux 14y ago
  Well, if this goes on for long enough, with open borders and such there's going to be a lot of mixing.. I'm not sure what we're going to call ourselves, but if nothing "explosive" happens in the next 2-3 centuries, I predict we'll be mostly brown-skinned and speak some sort of English.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
The EU is one thing, the eurozone another. Overall I don't think either has advanced the cause of European brotherhood very much and I think now the eurozone may actually be setting that goal back quite a bit (ask the Greeks or the Cypriots how they feel about their French and German European brothers).
lsc 14y ago
>USA on the other hand is an "engineered" country, people got there relatively recently and said "Ok, that's it, let's do things this way". Of course you will see more homogeneity and agreement. And nationalism actually helps keep stuff together instead of dividing people. Go study up on the American civil war. It was an extremely brutal conflict, and you see lingering resentment today, in the 'red states' and the 'blue states' - hell, I still make (offensive) jokes about how "we should have let them leave when we had the chance" - I mean, I don't know how it compares to the Germany vs. France thing, but even today, there is a pretty significant north/south divide in US politics (and urban/rural divide.) From my understanding of things, we (the northern, industrial states) conquered the southern, agricultural states through force of arms, (well, through force of superior production) - and we've kept them in the union since through a generous application of money. (It's seen as funny, that the "red states" generally speaking, consume more federal tax dollars than they give back, and yet those are the people who make a lot of noise about cutting the size of the federal government. The "blue states" are the opposite. The way I see it, we just figure it's cheaper to buy them bread and circuses than to fight 'em again, while they are frustrated by their powerless position. From what I read, (and culturally, I think) we think of the south as producing brave, but poorly equipped soldiers. (and often we think of the southern leadership as having more guts than brains, that, or just having generally less concern for the lives of their soldiers. The south, at least by Northerners, is perceived as having a lot more respect for it's aristocrats, and less respect for it's peasants, vs "the only color that matters is green" north, which tends to style itself as a meritocracy.) The turning point of the war is often considered to be 'Pickett's charge' - A very brave, but arguably, considering the weapons the union had in the area, the space they needed to cross, and the range and effectiveness of the Minié ball, very stupid military action.) My point here is that being more homogeneous (and we are... there are big cultural differences, but we all mostly speak the same language) does not save you from war. Civil war can be just as bloody and brutal as wars of conquest between different countries. When you get down to it, brothers will slaughter oneanother just as readily as strangers who don't speak the same language. Perhaps the more powerful EU countries should get used to giving handouts to the poor EU countries in order to keep things quiet; that is how I think things work here

by Nux 14y ago

Swizec 14y ago

Remember, most of our countries formed in the 19th and early 20th century. Before that Germans for instance were Prussians, Bohemians, Moravians, Bavarians and so on. (39 states) The French for instance only commonly adopted the same language in 1914. (When literacy rates were high enough for everyone to know French instead of regional languages). Most countries in Europe were the same less than 200 years ago. I can easily see us being Europeans 100 years from now. I know Slovenians (where I'm from) still considered it a novelty to think of themselves as Slovenians as late as the 1840's.

Nux 14y ago
Well, if this goes on for long enough, with open borders and such there's going to be a lot of mixing.. I'm not sure what we're going to call ourselves, but if nothing "explosive" happens in the next 2-3 centuries, I predict we'll be mostly brown-skinned and speak some sort of English.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

The EU is one thing, the eurozone another. Overall I don't think either has advanced the cause of European brotherhood very much and I think now the eurozone may actually be setting that goal back quite a bit (ask the Greeks or the Cypriots how they feel about their French and German European brothers).

lsc 14y ago

>USA on the other hand is an "engineered" country, people got there relatively recently and said "Ok, that's it, let's do things this way". Of course you will see more homogeneity and agreement. And nationalism actually helps keep stuff together instead of dividing people. Go study up on the American civil war. It was an extremely brutal conflict, and you see lingering resentment today, in the 'red states' and the 'blue states' - hell, I still make (offensive) jokes about how "we should have let them leave when we had the chance" - I mean, I don't know how it compares to the Germany vs. France thing, but even today, there is a pretty significant north/south divide in US politics (and urban/rural divide.) From my understanding of things, we (the northern, industrial states) conquered the southern, agricultural states through force of arms, (well, through force of superior production) - and we've kept them in the union since through a generous application of money. (It's seen as funny, that the "red states" generally speaking, consume more federal tax dollars than they give back, and yet those are the people who make a lot of noise about cutting the size of the federal government. The "blue states" are the opposite. The way I see it, we just figure it's cheaper to buy them bread and circuses than to fight 'em again, while they are frustrated by their powerless position. From what I read, (and culturally, I think) we think of the south as producing brave, but poorly equipped soldiers. (and often we think of the southern leadership as having more guts than brains, that, or just having generally less concern for the lives of their soldiers. The south, at least by Northerners, is perceived as having a lot more respect for it's aristocrats, and less respect for it's peasants, vs "the only color that matters is green" north, which tends to style itself as a meritocracy.) The turning point of the war is often considered to be 'Pickett's charge' - A very brave, but arguably, considering the weapons the union had in the area, the space they needed to cross, and the range and effectiveness of the Minié ball, very stupid military action.) My point here is that being more homogeneous (and we are... there are big cultural differences, but we all mostly speak the same language) does not save you from war. Civil war can be just as bloody and brutal as wars of conquest between different countries. When you get down to it, brothers will slaughter oneanother just as readily as strangers who don't speak the same language. Perhaps the more powerful EU countries should get used to giving handouts to the poor EU countries in order to keep things quiet; that is how I think things work here