What Does It Mean To Be A 'European'?
	found on The New York Times (registration required) written by chlim01, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sun 13 Oct 1:45pm
		"Novelist A.S. Byatt has penned for the New York imes Magazine a fascinating essay on the differing sense of what constitutes 'European' identity based on the expressed beliefs of those across the continent. While the French are very gung-ho about identifying themselves as European first and French second, others, especially the Italians, aren't as enthusiastic, probably because they see the current European bureaucracy and culture as being, well, French. "Other complications exist. While the older generation has a strong sense of the complex history that binds their nations together, younger Europeans, lacking this, have an easier time constructing a pan-European identity for themselves. And then there's America, the great Other Europeans define themselves against, even when they're happily devouring American cultural products."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 83 commentsbest: 6 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Eating pistachios and Eggplants   by coryb       at Sun 13 Oct 1:49pm score of 1.5 helpful     They're the Great Other, define yourself against; sneer at yourself?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  It's all about the soil...   by ricktdotorg       at Sun 13 Oct 2:40pm score of 1     The reason we Brits don't consider ourselves to be European is that we're separate from the Continent. Hence we're not Continentals, and in some throwback from our Imperial days, we like to think ourselves as "better" than others. It's absurd. That said, the US of E won't work, they should give up now before feudalism rears its head once again.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: It's all about the soil...   by eeksypeeksy       at Mon 14 Oct 1:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     The reason we Brits don't consider ourselves to be European is that we're separate from the Continent. But the channel and other trifles of geography mean little now. And with Europe's internal borders vanishing -- another 10 countries will join the EU very soon -- Europe will likely become much more like the US over time. (Or, if you prefer, Europe and the US will evolve toward a similar third identity, because the US will evolve at the same time.) The lack of a common language is the biggest problem in forming a united Europe, but soon (now?) almost all kids coming out of European schools will speak and write English well, and many of them will use those language skills every day in a borderless international job market. If they travel for employment, they will also use those language skills out on the town and very often at home. Perhaps in a hundred years Sweden will differ from Spain less than Wales differs from England.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: It's all about the soil...   by LeighBCD       at Mon 14 Oct 2:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     It has always been a fascinating mystery to me why English people see themselves as something other than European. (This whole idea of not being European, by the way, is a very English concept, not a Scottish or Irish one, but that is another discussion altogether). It is a fact that the whole world considers the UK to be part of the general geographical area that constitutes "Europe" - except for the English themselves. It seems obvious to me that Brits are Europeans in the same way that Americans and Canadians are generically "North American" or Australians and New Zealanders are "Antipodean". Lots of English people feel threatened by this analogy, though. I have tried arguing it with English friends before and 8 times out of 10 the discussion becomes emotional rather than logical. It is instinctive to the English character to be suspicious of anyone who comes from the "Continent" and I guess historically there are good reasons for that. To rose-lipt maidens and lightfoot lads   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  English   by renny0       at Mon 14 Oct 3:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     As an American, I always thought of Brits as being different from Europeans. I see people from the United States, Canadians, Australians, and Brits as being bonded together as English (maybe it's the language?) -- and I feel more allied to other English people than Europeans.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Nonsene to compare american identity to any other   by Anonymous Idiot       at Sun 13 Oct 3:08pm score of 0.5 astute     Why would an identity have to be some sort of uniformness? What makes an European is, that he expresses he is one, and that he embraces the european interests. (whether these are against or not the interest of other nations is not relevant here). American do think that you cannot have an European identity if: - you don't glorify Europe at any possible time like an idiot in front of a flag -you don't speak the same language -you don't unite against the rest of the world to feel how you are united This is simply a biased view, and Europe is, in that sense, definitely not USA. But you must be an American to be able to think of Europe defining itself against anything else. Hint: 1/3 of the humanity is either Chinese or Indian. Do you really feel that they have to define their identity against anyone else? Hint on the hint: no, they do not speak the same language nor have the same culture and history. But, they are still, either Chinese, or Indian.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by Malach       at Sun 13 Oct 3:37pm score of 1 incoherent   in reply to comment 3     But, they are still, either Chinese, or Indian. They are to you. But what are they to themselves? To truly know your enemy, first you must become his friend; then you can select the most fitting method for his demise.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by weiyuent       at Sun 13 Oct 8:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     But, they are still, either Chinese, or Indian. They are to you. But what are they to themselves? If you had met any Chinese or Indians, the answer would be starkly obvious to you. Like people of most, if not all, of the Asian cultures, we cling resolutely to our heritage.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by dharmacrush       at Mon 14 Oct 12:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     well, an "indian" isn't just an "indian" and a "chinese" just isn't a chinese, because between the two countries there are dozens of different ethnic groups, religions and languages spoken. ask a tibetan if he feels chinese or if a sikh agrees with the body politic nowadays in new delhi. let's not oversimplify the problem... the first sign of being a hipster is one's denial thereof   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by Malach       at Sun 13 Oct 8:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     You seem (in my opinion) to have missed my point. I'll try again. The original poster said "no, they do not speak the same language nor have the same culture and history. But, they are still, either Chinese, or Indian.". What I was questioning was whether they identified themselves as being within that broad, national culture, or some narrower defintion, perhaps regional, perhaps (sub) cultural, perhaps religion. I was in no way belittling the culture of the people I was referring to, I was simply pointing out that it may be finer grained from the inside than it appears from the outside. Oh... by the way, I've met a number of people from a number of different places and backgrounds. Just thought you might like to know that. To truly know your enemy, first you must become his friend; then you can select the most fitting method for his demise.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by weiyuent       at Sun 13 Oct 9:47pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 16     I see. I apologize, I assumed a lesser degree of sophistication in your response than I should have. Being Chinese and having lived in India for several years, I think I am uniquely qualified to answer your question. It is of course, as you suggest, not a simple issue. Ask the majority of Indians or Chinese if they identify themselves as Indian or Chinese, respectively, and the answer will be an unequivocal yes. The exceptions will come mainly from the inhabitants of disputed territories such as Kashmir, Tibet, Xinjiang etc, but in terms of shared values, history, heritage, etc. both India and China are unquestionably inseparable peoples. Loyalties are, however, a totally different matter. Given the intense feudal traditions and the often very tragic history in both Chinese and Indian culture, it is not suprising that patriotism is forced at best and that ties to your nation are usually insignificant compared to ties to your clan. India, of course, has a much more diverse makeup and fractious political landscape. But it seems that the cultures of India are converging far more than diverging. The occasional bloodletting between different groups, while deplorable, is far less commonplace than it used to be. Perhaps a good way to sum up the attitudes would be that everyone would identify themselves as Indian, but some would argue that they have more of a legitimate claim to that identity than their neighbour does.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by Mad Ogger       at Sun 13 Oct 5:11pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 3     Your views on Americans' views of American identity are...strange. As an American, I see American culture as being quite diverse. We have WASPs, and hip-hop, and suburban middle America, and goths, and hicks, and hippies, and on, and on. To me, all of these people are just as American as each other. I do believe Americans have some particular things in common, but they're subtle. So subtle I can't even articulate them, but they're always there. You are American if you: - salute the flag, fly cheap Plastic flags on your car, burn the flag, or ignore the flag, or all four before breakfast on Tuesdays only. - speak American English well, or poorly, with a Southern, Boston, New York, or any other accent, or in a regional or ethnic dialect. Or Chinese or Polish or Spanish if you grew up the right quarter of a big city. - always feel united with America against the world, unite only in case of terrorist attack, or don't want to unite because you think America is full of jingoist bastards, or raving fundamentalists, or limp-wristed pacifists. And that's why I love America. Any European that's surprised to hear this is ignorant. Any American who disagrees is an idiot.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by tomc       at Sun 13 Oct 10:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     The funny thing is that when we look at ourselves, we always see diversity, or at least mnore diversity than others see. However, when looked at from the outside, every culture will have it's similarities. For example, you can always tell an American tourist in a foreign land, because whenever he/she sees a building or a monument, the first question an American will always ask is, "How tall is that?" ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by Lemmy Caution       at Sun 13 Oct 11:18pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 8     I think a more accurate insight was made in the original Times piece: An American recently said to me at a German reception that she hadn't even noticed that she had a ''nationality'' until she came to Europe. There are two (at least) ways of looking at that. One is that for most Americans the natural way to be is to be American, and they are surprised to find Europeans are different, and have complex ways of looking at their own identities. The other is that in the United States family origins -- Italian, Irish, Jewish, Hispanic -- are subsumed in a deliberately chosen new identity, without being lost. I don't think the Europeans, any of them, even the most enthusiastic for political union, will ever subsume their origins in a new national identity as Americans naturally do. At this point, I see more American hostility to "the hyphen" than European hostility to it. In Europe, it is acceptable to be Sicilian, and Italian, and Jewish, and European. One can be Catalan and Spanish and European. And the "and-ness" (call it the Euro-hyphen) is getting stronger. However, call yourself an African-American, or an Irish-American, or a Jewish-American, or a German-American, and you are open to possible recrimination ("why can't you just be an *American?*" - I've heard that exact phrase used in recrimination against hyphenated identities over and over.) Perhaps the idea is that, since anyone might be eligible to become one, there's an expectation that you will, in fact, become one and nothing else.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by hohesC       at Mon 14 Oct 5:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     As an American, I see American culture as being quite diverse. We have WASPs, and hip-hop, and suburban middle America, and goths, and hicks, and hippies, and on, and on funny, i just KNEW this comment was coming. no offense meant, but to me, this is a very american remark. we have all those groups to, in certain variations, in EVERY country. and in each country it is different again. i too have an international background. born in sweden, part of my family is from estonia and i have lived most of my life in germany, except for 2 years, when i stayed in the USA. and let me tell you this: american culture is a lot less diverse than you actually believe. Any European that's surprised to hear this is ignorant. in my opinion, any american who thinks americans are even remotely as diverse as europeans is completely ignorant. i can pick an american, no matter what kind of social background or group he or she identifies herself with, in an instant. just by looking. let me come up with 2 examples from every persons life to illustrate the "different diversities". i can hop into my car, drive for an hour, go to a restaurant and don't know what to eat, even AFTER having the menu translated. in comparison, eating habits across the US differ only slightly. this summer, i was in sweden to celebrate my cousins high school graduation. the rituals were so different from the german rituals, people in germany shake their heads in disbelief when i tell them about it. however, most americans have gone through a similar cereony upon graduation. okay, some of them listened to other music or had richer parents, but every american can describe a typical graduation ceremony. i don't know how it is celebrated in most european countries. so comparing your diversity to the one i find in europe just puts a grin on my face. my first question upon hearing this is usually, "have you ever been to europe?" yes. no.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by Mad Ogger       at Sun 13 Oct 10:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 19     No, that's just Texans.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by joshv       at Mon 14 Oct 7:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     Jesus Christ, where to start... i too have an international background. born in sweden, part of my family is from estonia and i have lived most of my life in germany, except for 2 years, when i stayed in the USA. and let me tell you this: american culture is a lot less diverse than you actually believe. My father was born in Gronigen, Netherlands. My mother is descended from Scotch immigrants. I have a painter working on my house right now. He is Romanian, his wife is Greek - they met in Miami. If I hop in a taxi cab I am just about as likely to be driven around by a Pakistani as I am a Nigerian. i can hop into my car, drive for an hour, go to a restaurant and don't know what to eat, even AFTER having the menu translated. in comparison, eating habits across the US differ only slightly. I don't have to drive an hour. If I walk three or four blocks in my neighborhood I will pass restaurants representing approximately 10-20 different national cuisines. You are laughably naive as to American's eating habits. If I care to drive for an hour I could probably sample just about every major world cuisine. That's diversity. I can only imagine that you must have stayed in some rural area of the US and didn't travel much. Perhaps some small town in Wisconsin that had only a McDonalds and a local burger joint? his summer, i was in sweden to celebrate my cousins high school graduation. the rituals were so different from the german rituals, people in germany shake their heads in disbelief when i tell them about it. however, most americans have gone through a similar cereony upon graduation. okay, some of them listened to other music or had richer parents, but every american can describe a typical graduation ceremony. i don't know how it is celebrated in most european countries. Wow, an example of one custom which is relatively uniform across the United States, and it is a relatively minor point in the scale of most people's lives. I can give you examples of many other ceremonies that are not so uniform. Wedding Ceremonies (all over the board, based on ethnicity and religion), funerals/wakes, birthday parties, baptisms, baby showers/baby celebrations, etc... These things are so varied because the people that practice these customs come from literally every nation on the planet. i can pick an american, no matter what kind of social background or group he or she identifies herself with, in an instant. just by looking. Yes, I do this with German tourists where I live all the time. They stick out like a sore thumb. So what? Yes, there is a stereotypically American style of dress characterize by a bland assortment of mass marketted, mass produced clothing. And there are many Americans that don't dress this way because of their ethnic background, or the fact that they have better taste. Additionally, the way we dress on vacation on Sweden really has nothing to do with the way we'd dress for a night out on the town (white Gym shoes are great for walking around old castles, not so good in the dance club). so comparing your diversity to the one i find in europe just puts a grin on my face. my first question upon hearing this is usually, "have you ever been to europe?" Yes, I've even lived, studied, travelled and worked there - in multiple countries, at different times, and I can say emphatically that the US is indeed more diverse. -josh   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by katieo       at Mon 14 Oct 7:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     in my opinion, any american who thinks americans are even remotely as diverse as europeans is completely ignorant Hmmm, that's an interesting conclusion to come to, given that Europeans are countries defined by their ethnicity, while there's no such thing as being ethnically American. I'd be a fool to assert that the only measure of diversity is ethnic diversity, but I'll go out on a limb and say it's a more legitimate measure than say, the format of your high school graduation ceremony. I'd call that the difference between Europe and the U.S. - the U.S. values its ethnic diversity, Europe values its cultural. (Perhaps in the earlier paragraph, then, I gave myself away as being from the U.S. - let me modify my previous statements some...) Both are equally valuable. I only wish that Europeans would not assume that the U.S. is homogenous - in fact, we're far from it - because we all watch the same crappy television shows, or have the same cultural tics. It's equally as arrogant as assuming that all Swedes are the same because they have blonde hair and blue eyes. Yes, the U.S. has other methods of uniting - i.e., cultural, that "singing the same stupid songs" - since we have no defining ethnicity. People often mistake this as rampant nationalism, and Europeans remember the past and are naturally concerned. But ethnic and "cultural" nationalism are two different things. And frankly, its ethnic nationalism has proven to be far more frightening. Kids, you've tried and you've failed. The lesson is: never try.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by tomc       at Mon 14 Oct 9:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Wake up and smell the coffee, Mad Ogger. That's actually the response of Americans from every part of the country. We're not as dissimilar as you might want us to be! ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by amishrobot       at Mon 14 Oct 9:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     What is the point of comparing the diversity of one enormous country to the diversity of several smaller countries? Besides your points being fairly ridiculous (Yes, if you drive across the country you can stop at McDonalds and eat the same thing over and over, or you could eat at non-franchised restaurants and eat food from all over the world), you are comparing several nations to one. For one country, the US is incredibly diverse. I am glad you are so good at picking out americans, apparently not everyone is. When I was in Switzerland last summer people kept speaking to me in German, and in Paris people assumed I was french.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by hohesC       at Mon 14 Oct 10:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 44     as i said, no offense meant. actually, i don't put much emphasis on the question whether you have been to europe. i pretty much thought that you had travelled a lot when i wrote that. still, that question just popped into my head. i don't think we will agree on the main point, but it sounds like a fun discussion. my point is not that europe is more diverse than the US, but i don't believe the opposite either. If I hop in a taxi cab I am just about as likely to be driven around by a Pakistani as I am a Nigerian. pretty much same here, substitute different nationalities (turkish, african, yugoslavian) and there you are. If I care to drive for an hour I could probably sample just about every major world cuisine. That's diversity. same here. naive in regard to eating habit's? i don't think so. corporate fast-food joints are much more common in the US than in europe. and they all look the same. actually, the picture you paint of different cuisines in your town is probably true for every major city in the US. that ain't much diversity. however, the food in northern germany is fundamentally different from the food in southern germany. actually, in southern germany i can make up several kinds of cuisines that have large differences. by the way, no, i didn't stay in a small town in wisconsin, and yes, i travelled A LOT. otherwise i wouldn't make those claims. Wedding Ceremonies (all over the board, based on ethnicity and religion), funerals/wakes, birthday parties, baptisms, baby showers/baby celebrations, etc... ok, i admit, i picked one custom to illustrate my point, simply because it was one that really struck me just recently. actally, all you said can be found here to, in various sizes and shapes. and all those points i made before are just in one country! however, europe consists of many different countries, which differ widely in many respects. allow me to come up with one (gasp! only one) additional point: buildings and urban development. i always tell people that los angeles seems like a larger version of tampa (since i have been to both cities, i compare them). most (european) people who have been to both cities actually agree with me on that, even tough they understand that it is, indeed, an exaggeration (to a certain extent). however, houses and towns in austria look totally different from houses and towns in germany. and we even speak the same language! Yes, there is a stereotypically American style of dress characterize by a bland assortment of mass marketted, mass produced clothing. so we agree that "the masses" dress stereotypical and that there are exceptions? good. because i am talking about diversity not in small subgroups, but diversity in the population as a whole. funny that you should come up with white sneakers. isn't that a sign of, let's say, "diminished diversity" if white sneakers are the common shoe to jump around castles? while writing all this, it dawned of me what the main problem in this argument might be: do we not tend to notice variations in our own surroundings much more than in unfamiliar surroundings? in foreign lands, a lot seems the same, because everything is different, in a way. and it is hard to pick out the things that make the variations. for instance, you might not agree with the difference in buildings between germany and austria, but it has always struck me. you might point out that houses in georgia and washington don't look the same at all, while for me, they do. yes. no.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by hohesC       at Mon 14 Oct 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 53     What is the point of comparing the diversity of one enormous country to the diversity of several smaller countries? exactly the point i'm trying to make. if you scroll up, you will see that i didn't start that discussion. Besides your points being fairly ridiculous (Yes, if you drive across the country you can stop at McDonalds and eat the same thing over and over, or you could eat at non-franchised restaurants and eat food from all over the world), i don't think that point is too ridiculous. what i am trying to say is this: you can make your trip and eat food from different countries in every town you visit. because in every town, you have your italian, russian, pakistanian, etc. cuisine. in every town. here, i can drive into different towns in different regions and eat food that i will only find there. even though i know that you will frown upon my newest comparison, i will make it, just to illustrate: you can take a european visitor to a mall in your hometown and tell him "look at how many different stores we got here. now that's diversity." and your european friend will probably agree. however, take him to a couple of malls, and he will say "wait a second, all those malls have the same stores!" maybe that's the point: different understanding of the term diversity. you look at your town and say that you have a lot of different ways of livings there. i look at many different towns and see the same patters recurring. i will not make a statement as bold as to say that "my kind of diversity" is bigger or better than yours. but maybe that's one thing that makes americans and europeans different. or maybe just you and me. but, i will keep that statement, in case somebody wants to delve deeper into that. When I was in Switzerland last summer people kept speaking to me in German, and in Paris people assumed I was french. that happens, however, you are but one. and my observation was drawn on a much larger sample of probably a few hundred people. of course there are exceptions, and i know that my argument has a weak link: i don't know how many americans i didn't spot. yes. no.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by Adipic Acid       at Mon 14 Oct 1:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     that "singing the same stupid songs" - since we have no defining ethnicity. Singing YMCA and doing the Electric Slide are signs of rampant nationalism? I'm confused, I thought that they were signs of the coming Apocalypse! Staff meetings are rotting my brain, methinks. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by Mad Ogger       at Mon 14 Oct 10:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     No, I haven't been to Europe. I really want to go someday, though. A few points: I never claimed America was more diverse than Europe, and I don't care whether it is or is not. In some ways Europe is more diverse, which isn't surprising given it has twice the population, many more languages, and the countries have been around a lot longer. But I was really explaining that I'll accept just about anyone as an American if they want to be called one. Like the Mexicans that used to live upstairs from me. This was specifically to point out in response to another post that not all Americans predicate American identity on any kind of uniformity. How much do you really know about American eating habits? True, if you like burgers and pizza, you can get 'em anywhere. I'll bet you can get 'em almost anyplace in Europe too, although they may not be any good in some places. Pizza isn't the same across the US. I grew up in Wisconsin eating yummy salty meats on my pizza. Here in California, people use things like eggplant and artichokes, which are good, but in my opinion don't belong anywhere near a pizza. There are regional cuisines in the US too. I've never had grits or okra. Out in the country many people like venison, but you won't find it at a restaurant. I mean absolutely no offense by this, but you are showing off your European ignorance by assuming I was claiming that America is more diverse than Europe. Not every American is "USA #1!", which was one of the points was trying to get across. I'll leave with a question for all the European experts on American culture: Are Americans more offended by violence in movies or by sex and nudity in movies?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by Mad Ogger       at Mon 14 Oct 10:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 44     I can only imagine that you must have stayed in some rural area of the US and didn't travel much. Perhaps some small town in Wisconsin that had only a McDonalds and a local burger joint? Just for the record, only ridiculously small Wisconsin towns lack a Chinese restaurant. Italian is pretty common too. However, the majority of restaurants in the northern half of the state are very bad, regardless of style of cooking. I hear that resort towns have good restaurants, though. And if you go to the right place you can get venison and duck and elk and other McDonald's favorites.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by tomc       at Mon 14 Oct 11:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     "When I was in Switzerland last summer people kept speaking to me in German, and in Paris people assumed I was french." Well, that's because you're an Amish Robot. ham sandwich No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by bitekman       at Tue 15 Oct 6:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 57     On the food, you're wrong. Try to get hush puppies in Wichita, Kansas. Or a chicago-style hot dog in Birmingham, Alabama. Craving some pulled-pork BBQ? Gonna be hard to find in Portsmouth, NH. These are all regional foods that are not directly related to an external ethnicity. It is harder and harder to see the diversity in the US, but it's there, under the veneer of TV-approved cultures. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by nackums       at Tue 15 Oct 7:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 88     "Craving some pulled-pork BBQ? Gonna be hard to find in Portsmouth, NH." Similarly, try to get a good cheesesteak anywhere outside a 20 mile radius of Philly. There may be like 5 places in the entire country (outside the Philadelphia area) that make passable cheesesteaks. The idea just doesn't travel well...though maybe that's a good thing.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by hohesC       at Wed 16 Oct 6:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 88     before this drops off the front page, i would like to admit that my view on the diversity of american cuisine was a bit simplified. i tip my hat to all different styles of food the US has to offer. on my next visit, i promise to indulge further into the regional cuisines. yes. no.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Nonsene to compare american identity to any   by bitekman       at Wed 16 Oct 8:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 96     Well, cuisine might be overstating it...different places have different foods, and some places have unique foods. I think that it's easier to find interesting diversity in Europe, simply because it's smaller and more culturally dense. It's just that the US is a big place, and a lot of people (USAins included) only ever see a small portion and draw conclusions from that. But if you ever are stateside, send me a plastic message and I'll try to hook you up with what I'd consider the culinary delights of the region :) I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Out of the Past   by mrwarmth       at Sun 13 Oct 4:03pm score of 3 interesting     I think it's clear that how each European country views the prospect of a united Europe is controlled by the history of their power as influencers of Europe in the past. Byatt notes the hesitation of the Norwegians to identify with Europe. Well, that's hardly surprising. Denmark and Sweden took turns ruling them for almost all of their history as a nation. Norwegians have a complex about their national identity as a result. Much worse than Canada in relation to the US, because Canadians don't have to endure Americans telling them that we gave them their ability to read and write, which is what the Danes tell the Norwegians. France, on the other hand, is very enthusiastic about Europe because it sees the EU as the newest vehicle through which it can gratify its dreams of political hegemony. The French have always seen themselves as the true rulers of Europe, though, with the significant exception of Napoleon, they have had zero success at realizing that dream. They are also smart enough to know that their ability to influence the world merely as France ended at Suez - crushed at the hands of the United States. So they have conceptualized the EU as the new vessel for the expression of French power. Their Josef Conradian empire in west Africa is small consolation for those ambitions. The English and Spanish are ambivalent because they see themselves as part of a wider world, and one that they helped make. Unlike the French, both England and Spain actually had the experience of ruling a huge chunk of the world, and so their amibitions remain turned in that direction. The so-called "anglosphere" of Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand and India beckons the English with an air of familiarity that they rarely feel in Europe proper. Likewise for the Spanish. Europe is to them actually an afterthought, as they have often been to Europe. Add to this the xenophobia inherent in social democratic societies, and it seems that the formation of a unified European identity is far-fetched. Rather, what we will see is a unified administrative entity that is used, in succession, by a variety of thinly-veiled national agendas. We already see in the budget process that the old powers of Europe will simply refuse to honor their EU commitments when it conflicts with their national interests (as France has recently done with respect to EU limits on its budget deficit.). The US has such a strong national identity because it was formed by people who were consciously, actively forsaking their old one. This is not the case of the EU, where the task is to somehow integrate a dizzying array of ancient national identities into one super-identity. It can only fail. But that does not mean the EU will fail, or that it is a bad thing. It just won't be a United States of Europe. Indeed, one wonders if its formation does not herald an era of quiescence and introspection for Europe on the world stage, as it turns more and more inward on itself and its own dilemmas of identity. In that respect, the formation of the EU may in fact strengthen the ascendancy of the US and China as the powers of the 21st century, both countries unfettered by such preoccupations. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: Out of the Past   by hk       at Sun 13 Oct 4:35pm score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 5     In that respect, the formation of the EU may in fact strengthen the ascendancy of the US and China as the powers of the 21st century, both countries unfettered by such preoccupations. I have a sneaking suspicion that the inhabitans of Tibet, Xinjang Chinese Uzbekistan), and Inner Mongolia might be somewhat preoccupied with dilemmas of Chinese identity.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Out of the Past   by mrwarmth       at Sun 13 Oct 10:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Yes, but only because they are not Chinese. And because they constitute an insignificant percentage of the population and economic power of China. The Chinese have no doubt about their identity at all, which is why they have spent the 20th century vigorously reasserting control over all the parts of their former empire. Theirs is not a dialogue about who they are, but how they will get the rest of the world to acknowledge that, particularly the US. I think that the EU will be a bit player on the world's stage in the 21st century, dwarfed by the influence of China and the US. Much as it was dwarfed for much of the 20th century by Russia and America. They will be prosperous, but inward looking and politically impotent abroad. Which may be exactly to their liking. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Out of the Past   by Prexaspes       at Mon 14 Oct 12:13am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 22     If they have no doubt about their place in the world, then why are they so shrill when their national ego is bruised? For an example of this sort of behavior, see what happened in the wake of Sydney getting the nod for the Olympic games. China is still, quite frankly, getting over the loss of national pride they suffered in the 18th and 19th century to the likes of Britain and France. That's one of the reasons they do so much posturing - because they are in fact unsure of themselves and their identity in the modern world, not vice versa. If they were more sure of themselves, of their worth as a nation, they wouldn't act the European powers did prior to WWI - constantly huffing and puffing on about how great their nations were. Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Out of the Past   by mrwarmth       at Mon 14 Oct 8:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     The Chinese are entirely sure of their national and cultural identity. And the "posturing" you see comes precisely from a new confidence in their national power and international identity. There is no contradiction here. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Out of the Past   by Prexaspes       at Mon 14 Oct 9:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 50     If they are entirely sure, then why do they absolutely crave the apporval of the West? Again I go back to the example of the Olympic games. Most nations which are secure in their indentities don't throw temper tantrums when they lose out on hosting the Olympic Games. I would also argue that most of that sabre rattling you hear coming from China in is large part due to their inferiority complex. "We're here. You won't bully us around anymore. Really, you won't. We're just as good as you are. We really are. We really are. We know. Would you please trade with us? Please? Please?" Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Out of the Past   by mycena       at Mon 14 Oct 10:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     "Which may be exactly to their liking." Rulers come, rulers go. Pathetic images of superiority: the curse of this world. I always liked Herodotos. Do you?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Out of the Past   by Jack Canuck       at Sun 13 Oct 5:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     "The French have always seen themselves as the true rulers of Europe, though, with the significant exception of Napoleon, they have had zero success at realizing that dream." Never mind that Louis XIV unquestionably ruled the strongest state in Europe. No, he didn't militarily conquer the rest of the continent, but your statement is overly broad and inaccurate to boot - unless you were thinking specifically of military conquest. "Unlike the French, both England and Spain actually had the experience of ruling a huge chunk of the world" A list of territories ruled by France in the past, just off the top of my head: Quebec, Acadie (now New Brunswick & Nova Scotia), Ile St.-Jean (now Prince Edward Island), many island chains across the Pacific, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, selected port cities in India, Syria, Lebanon, Madagascar, scattered islands in the Indian Ocean, much of North and Central Africa, the huge chunk of central North America which was sold to the US as the Louisiana Purchase...might be more, but that's all I can think of right now. I hope you aren't going to argue that Quebec and Louisiana don't count because they lost them a long time ago, because on that count most Spanish overseas territories wouldn't count either. Personally, I'd say this list qualifies France as having "had the experience of ruling a huge chunk of the world". France's historical dilemma, exemplified by Napoleon, is that it has, unlike England, faced the choice of focusing on Europe or focusing overseas - it didn't have the resources to dominate both. I agree that the French hope to use the EU as a tool to continue/extend a sort of dominance in Europe, but it has had and still does have definite ambitions in the wider world. They have an agressive foreign policy, maintain close links with much of their former empire, were the only western nation after WWII to independently develop a nuclear capability, and even now have troops active in several North and West African nations, most recently in the Ivory Coast a few weeks ago when they acted to ensure the safe withdrawal of westerners caught in the rebellion in that country. I have seen the future, and it is murder.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Out of the Past   by MC Nally       at Sun 13 Oct 8:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     A list of territories ruled by France in the past, just off the top of my head: Quebec, [and] the huge chunk of central North America which was sold to the US as the Louisiana Purchase... I hope you aren't going to argue that Quebec and Louisiana don't count because they lost them a long time ago.. I'd argue against using Quebec and the area once known as Louisiana (not to be confused with the area currently known as Louisiana..) as examples to support your point because at the time France ceded ownership to other powers French control of each consisted of not a great deal more than a claim of ownership and a few French settlements on the fringes of mild-bogglingly large tracts of almost completely unexplored territory (unexplored by Europeans, at any rate..) More settlement, admittedly, in the case of Quebec, but at the time the French ceded Quebec and Louisiana to the English and the Americans respectively, what fraction of the area of each was actually under the control of France, populated by Francophones, administered under French legal customs, etc?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Out of the Past and totally OT   by athenaj       at Sun 13 Oct 9:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     . . .what fraction of the area of each was actually under the control of France, populated by Francophones, administered under French legal customs, etc? I guess you've never been to, or are familiar with Quebec. The answers to your statement above are: 1) All of the areas named were controlled by the French. 2) Most of its inhabitants speak French to this day. 3) Officially from 1534 to 1763, ending with the British taking over during the Seven Years War. Yet something called the Quebec Act in 1774 allowed the French in Quebec to continue living under French civil law. The many tours I took during my recent visit to New Orleans informed me that the state is still ruled under Napoleonic law as well . .   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Out of the Past   by Prexaspes       at Mon 14 Oct 12:07am score of 0.5 incoherent   in reply to comment 13     ***I'd argue against using Quebec and the area once known as Louisiana (not to be confused with the area currently known as Louisiana..) as examples to support your point because at the time France ceded ownership to other powers French control of each consisted of not a great deal more than a claim of ownership and a few French settlements on the fringes of mild-bogglingly large tracts of almost completely unexplored territory (unexplored by Europeans, at any rate..) Can you get this through your thick skull? France lost those lands in a war. It gave them up for the far more profitable islands in the Caribbean that Britain had seized in the Seven Years's War (Britain and France tended to trade these islands like so many bags of wheat). Canada was and remained a largely marginal colony for Britain. It was really only with Canadian independence that the nation started on its very prosperous track. ***More settlement, admittedly, in the case of Quebec, but at the time the French ceded Quebec and Louisiana to the English and the Americans respectively, what fraction of the area of each was actually under the control of France, populated by Francophones, administered under French legal customs, etc? The areas surrounding Montreal and Quebec city certainly were. That France still has very close ties to Quebec today (3/4 of the freaking province speaks French after all) is an indication of its deep influence in that region of North America. As far as the LP is concerned, do you need to be reminded that French law, the Napoleonic code, still has the force of law in the state of Louisiana? That's what they use for the their state law - much as the common law is practiced say still in Massachusetts. And again, France has significant ties with the state. It has in fact much money on renovation projects for the French Quarter (wow, did you see what I called it?) for example, and has special government to government ties with the state. Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Out of the Past and totally OT   by MC Nally       at Mon 14 Oct 7:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     I guess you've never been to, or are familiar with Quebec. And if you were to make that assumption, you'd be completely wrong. We're getting a little far from the original topic here, but your response so completely mistook my point that I feel compelled to clarify a few things. I'm not, as you seem to assume, making some preposterous claim against French influence over Quebec or Louisiana. But the post to which I replied counted the vast land areas of Quebec and the entire Louisiana Purchase in support of an argument that France once controlled a world-spanning empire comparable to that of the English or Spanish. I objected to the inclusion of these land areas because, while they may have been, according to the legal fictions of the day, controlled by France, that control wasn't really comparable to the more direct control Spain and England exerted over their colonial possessions. One estimate I've found for Francophone population in Quebec in 1763 is about 70,000 (out of a land areas of 1.3M km^2) Distributed evenly that's about one French colonist per 20 km^2, but of course they weren't distributed evenly, they were heavily concentrated along the Saint Lawrence. Influence in the interior largely consisted of a few trappers and whatever treaties or arrangements the colonial governors had managed to negotiate with various First Nations. The French colonial population in the Louisiana Purchase was, I believe, even fewer and the land area vastly greater. 1) All of the areas named were controlled by the French. To get an idea of the distinction between the legal fiction of control over the areas we're talking about and something we might today recognize as control, imagine yourself standing squarely in the geographic center of the Louisiana Purchase five minutes before the final documents were signed by the respective representatives of the US and France. Ten minutes elapse and the land you are standing on has changed hands and is now officially under the control of the United States. From your point of observation, how on earth would you be able to tell?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: Out of the Past and totally OT   by kuuba       at Mon 14 Oct 6:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     To get an idea of the distinction between the legal fiction of control over the areas we're talking about and something we might today recognize as control, imagine yourself standing squarely in the geographic center of the Louisiana Purchase five minutes before the final documents were signed by the respective representatives of the US and France. Ten minutes elapse and the land you are standing on has changed hands and is now officially under the control of the United States. From your point of observation, how on earth would you be able to tell? That's a quite bad example. With less than 4 million people (I couldn't find statistics for 1776, ony for 1790..) in the original 13 colonies, you could pick a point in them randomly, and not notice anything when the declaration was signed by those merry old men..   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Out of the Past   by Prexaspes       at Sun 13 Oct 6:05pm score of 1 irrelevant   in reply to comment 5     >>Their Josef Conradian empire in west Africa is small consolation for those ambitions.>> Hmm, you understate the nature of France's imperial experience - I suggest a remedial course on the subject. Look at France's old and new empires, and you'll see what I mean. Spain was a European pariah for much of the 20th century, and its empire collapsed in the first twenty years of the 19th century. Hell, Spain was a land where the Inquisition of all things was enforced during the 19th century. They desperately held onto the leftovers of that empire well into the 20th century (Cuba was fondly looked upon as the "loyal" colony - until the revolts of the 1870s at least), perhaps as a way of salving their wounded pride. They were also incredibly introspective - the empire was not a place for Spaniards to create new "little Spains," but places to reap profits from. That's why major migrations out of Spain only occurred AFTER Spain lost its empire. Hell, the Spanish had to recruit non-Spaniards to help populate their colonies - this reticence on the part of Spaniards to move to the New World is reflected in the population demographics of Latin America today - compare the level of Indian blood in Latin America's population with that of North American societies and you will see what I mean (Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay excepted since they were incarnations largely of the post-colonial world). The industrial revolution left Spain behind, as did the modern changes in government and social structure that France and Britain underwent. See Goya's artwork, and the basic criticism it makes of Spain - its backwardness and the like - and you'll see what I mean. That Spain was ruled by a tyrant from the mid-1930s to the 1970s wasn't very helpful either. Its been having to play catch-up ever since. What explains Spain's behavior today has far less to do with its colonial experience (which was far more negative in its impact than positive), and far more to do with its failures over the 19th and 20th centuries to create any resembling a modern, vibrant culture until the last thirty years. It had to create that culture largely by looking beyond its borders. I do also find it laughable that you assume that Britons are welcomed with open arms into the non-white regions of the former British empire. Those, quite frankly, are not the places Britons travel to generally. The same sorts of conflicts arise in the US as well. Where states refuse to honor commitments so that the constituents of a state are not harmed. You really overstate your position here. The US has a strong national identity because such percolated over a two hundred plus year period. That and conflicts like the Civil War forged that identity in blood. And you really overstate how much the revolution was a conscious effort to create a new national identity - it was really nothing of the sort for most of the revolutionaries. Though the romantic, and a-historical vision of the Revolution as protrayed by Hollywood is course different. They still viewed themselves as Englishmen with English rights (look at the contemporary writings and diaries of the bulk of those involved on the revolutionary side and you will see what I mean) - in fact, what they fought for were English rights, which they felt were being denied them. It was only in the decades after the Revolutionary war that an American identity began to emerge - but that took nearly one hundred years. Which is why American literature, for example, was so shitty in comaprison to European literature well into the 19th century. As far as your prediction about the EU is concerned, I can only say that the same was also said about the US in the 1780s. Time and time again the notion of a united Europe has been discounted in the US since WWII. Time and time again the Europeans have generally proven the Americans wrong. The naysaying will continue of course - partly as a means to protect the sensitive psychological framework Americans have of their place in the world. Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Out of the Past   by mrwarmth       at Sun 13 Oct 10:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Your argument is not terribly coherent, but let me try to address the points you make. Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries controlled most of North and South America, and in addition it ruled huge chunks of Europe. It had the most feared land army in Europe and in the New World. What the Spanish did with that power is irrelevant to my argument - whether they wanted to immigrate to the New World or not, whether they had an Inquisition or not - these are all irrelevant to the point that they exercised unparalleled power both in Europe and in the New World. Only the British Empire superseded them in extent, but not until the 18th and 19th centuries. France of course had foreign colonies, but they never amounted to much of an empire. France was always a day late and a dollar short, and had trouble hanging on to what little it had. You mention Quebec - yes, but who wound up with all of Canada? They sold their possessions in what became the US to raise spending money - hardly the example of a world-spanning empire. They controlled Indochina, but this is dwarfed by the British control of India. France controlled, only intermittently, a patchwork of countries that winked on and off over the centuries. France only had anything like the influence of the British and Spanish in the most insignificant part of their empire - west Africa. Whenever France needed to further its ambitions in Europe, it sold off its Empire, something the Brits never had to do, because they saw their Empire as their accomplishment. That speaks to my comment about how the French have always been focused ultimately on being the big stick in Europe. My point about Britain feeling drawn towards the angloshpere has nothing to do with where Brits like to vacation. Though you can't spit in New York or LA without hitting several dozen at a time. Likewise, you can't spit in London without hitting a dozen Australians, etc. Politically, economically and diplomatically, the Brits feel part of their Commonwealth and feel a special relationship with the US. The US, for example, shares intelligence with the UK that is does not share with France or any other European country. The list goes on. Ditto for Spain and its former colonies. The UK and Spain feel themselves part of a wider cultural and political world whose reach far extends that of Europe proper. Both developed the height of their power by concentrating away from Europe and onto the world outside. Hence the notion that the only way they can be "real" is by being "European" seems amusing to them. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Out of the Past   by Prexaspes       at Sun 13 Oct 11:52pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 21     Your arguement is not well informed, but let me address what you presented with the following. ***Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries controlled most of North and South America, and in addition it ruled huge chunks of Europe. It had the most feared land army in Europe and in the New World. What the Spanish did with that power is irrelevant to my argument - whether they wanted to immigrate to the New World or not, whether they had an Inquisition or not - these are all irrelevant to the point that they exercised unparalleled power both in Europe and in the New World. Only the British Empire superseded them in extent, but not until the 18th and 19th centuries. Actually, they are quite relevant. They go to my major point (and trust me, I know far more about the history of colonialism and imperialism than you do) - that Spaniards were a introspective lot, even at the height of their power (and one wonders if they were so powerful, why they could never get around to defeating the Dutch protestants), so introspective that their far flung empire had little cultural impact in the long run on Spain itself. ***France of course had foreign colonies, but they never amounted to much of an empire. France was always a day late and a dollar short, and had trouble hanging on to what little it had. You mention Quebec - yes, but who wound up with all of Canada? They sold their possessions in what became the US to raise spending money - hardly the example of a world-spanning empire. They controlled Indochina, but this is dwarfed by the British control of India. Nevertheless, France has a deep and fairly significant imperial experience - and one far nearer historically to France's present state than Spain's imperial experience I might add (keep in mind that Spain's empire was dead as of 1820 - or do I need to keep reminding you of this?). What really trumps your argument is the fact that France actively sought empire in the 19th century - if indeed as you imply they never looked outside Europe, then they would have not spent so much filthy lucre and blood on their colonial projects. Your argument also doesn't explain why France spent so much blood trying to keep its grip on Algeria. If they are so Europe-focused, why was Algeria viewed by so many French as part of France itself? Your argument makes no sense in light of this. ***France controlled, only intermittently, a patchwork of countries that winked on and off over the centuries. Well, quite frankly, the same can be said of Britain's colonies as well. Aside from India, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (India being the only important colony of the bunch - New Zealand falling into their lap by accident really) Britain's New Empire colonial possessions were not held for over one hundred years for the most part (most of the colonies in Africa in fact had a short lifespan, excepting that of the Portugese, and Spain's unimportant North African colonies founded in the Renaissance). ***France only had anything like the influence of the British and Spanish in the most insignificant part of their empire - west Africa. Whenever France needed to further its ambitions in Europe, it sold off its Empire, something the Brits never had to do, because they saw their Empire as their accomplishment. The only portion of its empire that it ever sold was what we call the "Louisiana Purchase." It lost Quebec, etc. in a war, look it up. BTW, one may ask why France was willing to give up, in the treaty following the Seven Years' War (French & Indian War), all of North America for some tiny islands in the Caribbean. The simple answer is that those islands were far more profitable than all of North America combined (the original British colonies included). How was this so? They were sugar colonies. Sugar being one of the most profitable trade items at the time. A good bargain for their part, as Canada never really was much of a profitable venture for the British as a colony, especially once the fur trade declined in the 19th century. ***My point about Britain feeling drawn towards the angloshpere has nothing to do with where Brits like to vacation. Though you can't spit in New York or LA without hitting several dozen at a time. Likewise, you can't spit in London without hitting a dozen Australians, etc. Politically, economically and diplomatically, the Brits feel part of their Commonwealth and feel a special relationship with the US. Might have something to do with the fact that they speak the same language and have common cultural history. Of course, if you ever travel to former French colonies, you'll see lots of Frenchmen living there. Go to Mali or Tahiti and you'll see what I mean. ***The US, for example, shares intelligence with the UK that is does not share with France or any other European country. The list goes on. Hmm, again this points to very little of real substance - except the fact that British and the US have a common cultural heritage. France also shares intelligence with its former colonies, BTW. ***Ditto for Spain and its former colonies. And d read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Out of the Past   by _sic       at Mon 14 Oct 5:28am score of 3 compelling   in reply to comment 27     I just wanted add an opinion as someone who lives in Spain in 2002. The Spanish feel very much part of Europe and as every national poll I´ve seen illustrates, they are extremely pleased about it. Although the Hapsburg empire did mark Spanish and European history, I think that the Franco dictatorship has much much more to do with the current Spanish psyche than Charles V. The Spanish endured almost 40 years of political and cultural repression that was burned into the collective psyche via the Church, the Government and the military (represented by the Guardia Civil). Remember that before the Civil War the Spanish Republic was one of the most progressive and modern entities that Europe had ever seen. They were speaking about "free love" and civil rights in the 1930s! Women fought in the military on the Republican side. Anarchism was actually put into practice as a viable political ideal (for a short period in some parts of Spain during the war). Spain was progressive, even to some degree radical. With Franco's victory all of that ended. The free thinkers were imprisoned, murdered or harried into exile (mostly to South America) while the rest of the population had to endure an incredible psychological beating that stripped them of dignity and civil rights, turning them from one of the most vibrant political countries in the 30s into a poor and scared herd of sheep that had to carry their "papers" with them wherever they went and were forced to obey a permanent curfew. Homosexuality and dissent were outlawed. Along the way they developed a deep inferiority complex toward the rest of Europe, especially France. It´s important to note that the former Republic was designed to a large extent after the French political structure developed in the 19th century. The last 25 years (after the death of the dictator) have been all about trying to overcome that inferiority complex and one of the biggest boosts to the Spanish psyche in this regard has been its acceptance into the EU. To be part of Europe means so much to the Spanish, as much as that cruel old French refrain that "Africa starts south of the Pyrenees" used to mean to them. I´m not sure where the idea that Spain feels it is part of the larger world comes from. I´m sure this is true, but only after feeling itself to be European. salud.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Out of the Past   by Stuart       at Mon 14 Oct 7:01am score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 27     "I know far more about the history of colonialism and imperialism than you do)" "I've already eviscerated this argument." "Hmm, who said anything about being "real?" chuckle Please don't invent counter-arguments" " It lost Quebec, etc. in a war, look it up. " You're absolutely right, and you're an asshole. "It is not perfectly clear from your syntax which side of the pony you are trying to ride here." - AI   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Out of the Past   by MC Nally       at Mon 14 Oct 7:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Your arguement is not well informed, but let me address what you presented with the following.. ..and trust me, I know far more about the history of colonialism and imperialism than you do.. The only portion of its empire that it ever sold was what we call the "Louisiana Purchase." It lost Quebec, etc. in a war, look it up. BTW, one may ask why France was willing to give up, in the treaty following the Seven Years' War (French & Indian War), all of North America for some tiny islands in the Caribbean. The simple answer is that those islands were far more profitable than all of North America combined (the original British colonies included). How was this so? They were sugar colonies. As I recall, France kept St. Pierre and Miquelon, too. They're perhaps not significant enough to invalidate your "arguement", but omitting them doesn't really lend credibility to your "trust me, I'm an expert" claim..   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Out of the Past   by Prexaspes       at Mon 14 Oct 8:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     Actually, I've never known what their rationale for keeping those were. It is interesting that they were some of first possessions seized by the Free French in WWII though. Which caused quite a snit with the Roosevelt administration. Nevertheless, their willingness to cede all of North America (minus those two islands) for some islands in the Caribbean remains true. And why? Because they were sugar islands. Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Out of the Past   by mrwarmth       at Mon 14 Oct 8:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 38     I'm sure everything you say is true. However, I don't think the historical facts you point out invalidate my point that the Spanish do in fact have a sense of being colonial masters in relation to their former empire. I have a very dear friend who is Mexican (not Mexican-American). He was posted to Madrid for two years for his job. He couldn't wait to leave. He told me that he experienced relentless condescension and mockery from the Spaniards because he was Mexican. The palpable sense of colonial superiority drove him nuts. He was even asked once if he was Mexican, where were his feathers and jade? So I'm afraid you're being perhaps a little blind to other cultural attitudes the Spanish may have. Indeed, it is probably the very sense of inferiority in relation to Europe that you mentioned that impels Spaniards to emphasize their former colonial superiority over others. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Re: Out of the Past   by _sic       at Mon 14 Oct 4:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     Niall, oh yes, this is definitely the reason that the (some) Spanish take an arrogant stance with South Americans. It springs from that inferiority complex and as a Bolivian living in Spain, I find it sad and repellent. But I think that in the mind of a 21st century Spanish bigot, this attitude comes more from the fact that they feel Europe is superior to say Africa or South or Central America than the fact that the Hapsburgs empire once included the so called New World. Spaniards with this mentality probably don´t even know who the Hapsburg were. I personally have never had to deal with someone so retarded that they would make feathers and Jade jokes, and I hope I never do; but I do feel there exists a corresponding inferiority complex that many (Central and South) Americans feel when they are living in Spain, the US, or any other European country. In my opinion this makes them hyper-sensitive to perceived insults. This is especially true with Spaniards who of course also speak Spanish and are very dry and direct, so much so that they sound like cold, arrogant bastards to the (South & Central)American ear. As in any country, some of the Spanish are just vile, but often the American misinterpets the cultural norm of direct, dry and sometimes arrogant sounding speech as a personal attack on them because they are from the "third world". I´ve also heard similar opinions about the French,English and German as well. That is, people say that they are arrogant or cruel in their humor or in their general way of treating people. I´ve come to believe that they just live within different social mores and that when I visit (or live!) in those countries, I should try to adjust to that culture. I still feel bad for your mexican friend though, his insult doesn´t sound perceived. salud ps) I wasn´t trying to invalidate your argument, it is a compelling one, but I still feel that the Spanish feel profoundly Spanish and European more than anything else.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: Out of the Past   by Prexaspes       at Tue 15 Oct 11:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     Ahh, the same is also true for those who come from the realms of the French Empire to France. Friends I've known from Chad can't stand the paternalistic airs that Frenchmen take toward them. You are really not saying anything that isn't common for all the European nations that had imperial regimes. Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Exception of Napolean?   by Ajax       at Mon 14 Oct 10:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     I know there are Americans who will never get tired of making fun of the French defeat in WWII, and thus myopically viewing them as utterly hopeless in matters military; but that doesn't change the fact that significant portions of Africa and Asia (and in this hemisphere, Canada and French Guiana) were ruled, successfully or un-, by the French for several decades. There was this little thing called the French and Indian War...remember? The French didn't win, but the fact that it needed to be fought sort of belies your claim that Napolean was France's only taste of empire-building glory. "Coca-Cola® and Armageddon® / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by Lemmy Caution       at Mon 14 Oct 1:19pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 58     The American myth of French cowardice or military incompetence comes along with 2 other great acts of historical revision, by which the US takes credit for the defeat of Germany in both wars. The US deserves credit for the victory of D-Day and the liberation of Paris in World War 2; however, the heavy-lifting work against Germany was done by the USSR - no one who has any knowledge of the history denies it (and, of course, if the US weren't in the picture, it's quite possible that the USSR would have fallen - but without the USSR, Europe would definitely have fallen.) but the general popular "consensus" is that the defeat of Nazism was an essentially American project. A greater distortion of history is the claim of French failure - and US rescue - in the first world war. Paris was never occupied by the Germans , although I've heard more than one American take credit for liberating France in WWI. While some areas of northern France were (brutally, one might add) occupied by the Germans, France never surrendered during the 2nd World War. What is true - and almost completely overlooked - is that France lost 10 percent of its population in that war, suffering far more than Germany or any other European country did. Its economy was wrecked, reduced to half of its pre-war level. The caricature of France as "cheese-eating surrender-monkeys" in light of its actual WW1 history is a grave disservice to the truth.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by Karkovice       at Mon 14 Oct 1:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 63     of course, if the US weren't in the picture, it's quite possible that the USSR would have fallen - but without the USSR, Europe would definitely have fallen. Actually, I think the opposite position has more merit. Without American and British Arctic lifeline of supplies, the USSR would almost certainly have fallen. The influx of supplies allowed the Russians enough time to bring their whole weight of the nation to bear against the Wehrmacht. Conversely, by England had managed to fend off a a possible invasion in 1940. While they could not undertake offensive operations, it also could not have been easily invaded. Assuming America enters the war, I don't think it would be that improbalt to assume that the combined Anglo-American forces would have defeated the Germans, albeit at the cost of hundreds of thousands of additional American casualties.( we won't count Italy,whose army had a truly pathetic track record). As far as the French go, there can be no justification for their conduct in World War II. Shit, they fought the English harder then they did the Nazis. Their lack of a formal surrender is a red herring, don't you think. Wake up to this   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by Lemmy Caution       at Mon 14 Oct 1:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 65     I was referring to Anglo-American material support when I said that "if the US weren't in the picture..." etc. The tide had already turned against Germany in the East by the time that D-Day had occurred. D-Day itself was a sticky enough wicket - frankly, if even a good percentage of the resources that were on the eastern front were on the west, I suspect the invasion force would have been repelled - and perhaps, the US and England would have sued for peace (there's no sign that Germany expected to invade and rule Britain - they were hoping to force Britain into a peace treaty, and then rule the Greater Reich. Germany's real ambitions were to the east.) The French erred in the design of the Maginot line. Remember, only 20 years before the war, France was in ruins. The German invasion was a blitzkrieg - remember how small Europe is, consider how quickly Germany moved through Poland and the Ukraine, and take a look at a map and see just how little terrain Germany, with a fully mechanized army, had to traverse to take Paris.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by kuuba       at Mon 14 Oct 7:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 65     Conversely, by England had managed to fend off a a possible invasion in 1940. While they could not undertake offensive operations, it also could not have been easily invaded. Assuming America enters the war, I don't think it would be that improbalt to assume that the combined Anglo-American forces would have defeated the Germans, albeit at the cost of hundreds of thousands of additional American casualties.( we won't count Italy,whose army had a truly pathetic track record). Hold your horses there, cowboy! USSR had 4.7M troops, armed with excellent tanks (KV-1, T-34), when Hitler attacked them - their initial setbacks were mostly due to poor leadership and inferior tactics compared to the Wehrmacht. After they got their act together, it got a lot harder for the Germans to keep their pace - Stalin still had more troops to throw on the field.. If USSR and Germany would've been in peace, there would've been no eastern front to divert Hitlers attention and troops - how do you imagine UK and US staging an invasion? Against the mighty army of Germany? With the million dead on the eastern front still fighting for Hitler? I might be wrong tho - since I have no clue as to the size of british infantry at the time, but the idea of the US shipping a constant stream of troops over an ocean to be killed on the beachhead seems quite absurd. As far as the French go, there can be no justification for their conduct in World War II. Shit, they fought the English harder then they did the Nazis. Their lack of a formal surrender is a red herring, don't you think. Yeah, they just gave up. It's good to remember how bravely the rest of the Europe stood up against the germans.. Or could it just be that their military was superior compared to anyone else? Your own nickname points towards Poland, which surely put up an excellent fight against the Germans.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by holgate       at Mon 14 Oct 9:20pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 63     The US deserves credit for the victory of D-Day and the liberation of Paris in World War 2; In which case, my grandad must have been lying to me about landing at Normandy and ploughing through northern Europe alongside the Canadians. After all, I watched Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, and you never see any non-Americans doing the fighting on the Allied side. And Steven Spielberg is always accurate, isn't he? (But apart from that rather gravely wrong elision of 'D-Day' with 'Americans', it's a compelling argument. I don't think anyone who fought in France falls for the rather lame 'France surrenders' lines, which themselves tend to come from kiddiwinks who do believe that Tom Hanks won every European war in the 20th century, more or less on his own.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by Lemmy Caution       at Mon 14 Oct 10:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 79     I don't mean to say that Americans did D-Day by themselves - there were Canadian, Australian, British, and Free French troops involved, and I recall the Canadian landings being particularly grueling with high loss of life. But it is fair to call it America's 'finest hour' in the war, and largely American leadership, materiel, and numbers at work. (I would be more annoyed at the recent film that credited the capture of the Enigma to the Americans, when it was a British venture soup-to-nuts.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by mrwarmth       at Tue 15 Oct 10:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 63     The French have not won a war on their own since Napoleon. They lost the Franco-Prussian War. They would have lost the First World War. They were completely conquered by the Germans in WWII. The list goes on and on. French failure is hardly a myth. Particularly when one links their military failures with their history of collaboration with the Nazis after they were defeated. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by Lemmy Caution       at Tue 15 Oct 11:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 91     The US has not won a war "on their own" since the Spanish-American War. Every conflict that the US has been in since has been as part of an alliance, and while American participation may have been necessary for victory in most of those cases, only in the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan could it be described as sufficient. The last time the US was at war by itself was in Vietnam. We know how that went.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Free World Military Forces.   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 15 Oct 11:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 92     That is what the contingents of Australians, New Zealanders, Koreans, Taiwanese (we called them Nationalist Chinese), and Philipinos were called when I was over in Nam back in 67 through 69. So, not even Vietnam was simply a matter of the U.S. going it alone. However, don't forget we took on the best that Grenada and Cuba and Panama could bring to the table all by our lonesomes. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Exception of Napolean?   by bitekman       at Tue 15 Oct 1:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 79     Yes, you're entirely right. Americans tend to have a rather odd conception of the actual troop concentrations. On D-Day, the british landed a total of 49,000 troops. The Canadians landed 21,400. The americans landed 54,000. Very significant, but nothing like the domination of the Gulf War by any means. Most D-day movies focus on Omaha beach, one of the two beaches the US landed at. Of the 34k landed, they suffered 2,400 casualties. This was compared to 1,200 at Juno (Canada), 630 at Sword (UK), 400 at Gold (UK), and 300 at Utah (US). It's probably the particularly brutal nature of Omaha (and, of course, the fact that it was Americans dying) that inextriably linked it to "D-Day" in the minds of most Americans. (all these stats from a search.eb.com link) If the US deserves unequivocal credit for anything in WWII, it's for outproducing the crap out of the Axis -- by 1945 the US had produced more than double the war material of the entire Axis (a www.ddaymuseum.org link). Nonetheless, giving the US complete for victory in WWII is jingoistic crap, however proud you may be of the US achievements in that war. It certainly could be argued that the entry of the US was critical to the defeat of the Axis, but as others have pointed out, it was the black hole of the Eastern front that really brought Hitler his doom. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Answer   by USFboy       at Sun 13 Oct 5:15pm score of 3 funny     What Does It Mean To Be A 'European'? That you live in Europe?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Really?   by ksu93       at Sun 13 Oct 6:06pm score of 2 funny     While the older generation has a strong sense of the complex history that binds their nations together, younger Europeans, lacking this, have an easier time constructing a pan-European identity for themselves. Obviously this survey was not conducted at a soccer game. "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  The next World Cup ...   by orangeguru       at Sun 13 Oct 10:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     Is 2006 here in Germany with many games played here in Munich ... I am already planning to leave cities ... I just had to many Fussball wars in my life time ... orangeguru PS: Kicking each other for a team of overpaid idiots is still better then making real wars, like bombing camels or worse in the desert ...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Pshhh why are these answers so long   by newkindakick       at Sun 13 Oct 8:37pm score of 1     The French enthusiasm for "pan-Europeanism" has less to do with the history of French imperialism than with the French public's tendency to seize on any new and faddish idea that comes their way. They'll get bored of it soon, and so will the people who write articles about these things. Besides, if the defining essence of this "pan-Europeanism" business is going to be resistance to American cultural values...well, won't the Euros have to find something more original than that? I mean, isn't that more of a pan-world thing? "Pan-Europeanism" will need something more distinguishing, I'd think. And no, funny hats won't do. I wouldn't normally do this kinda thing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  Being European ...   by orangeguru       at Sun 13 Oct 10:54pm score of 2 interesting     I am born in Germany, I have lived in the US and the UK, travelled some countries within the EU. One thing I love about europe is it's complexity and history - one huge family, almost everybody fought a war against everybody else, conquered them, got conquered, made alliances, traded etc. ... Europe is such a fascinating puzzle: look at the British, who's celtic ancestors have been conquered by Danes and Germanic tribes. I have exchanged with a friend some old english poems that are very similar to old High German. There is a lot to explore ... There is hardly a stone that hasn't been tread on, kicked by a roman soldier or thrown at another conquering army. Our cities are twisted and turned ... it always freaks my american friends, when they have to cope with "non-grid" cities, that refuse to have streets that have north-south / east-west axis. This love with history, complexity and deepth must often be confusing for americans, because we europeans like digging in our entanglements and distrust any "simply" solutions. Anyone who has ever read Kant, Machiavelli or any french Philosopher knows there is no such thing as "simple" in the european soul. I also like to add an personal experience that also very well reflect the "european thing". Every language / culture comes with a different perception of time and space, it's own way to see and handle so called reality. When I am in the UK and US I can feel and experience life in quite different ways - although I use a similar language (please no flaming about US and UK english). Being back in Germany I often feel like entering a totally different universe with untransferable attitudes and priorities. Europe has many very different and deeply rooted universes close to each other - take Germany for example. I live here in Munich and speak a mild bavarian accent (and consume some less mild decent & proper beer) - if I just travel some 100 km within Bavaria to the Allgäu I have a hard time understanding these people. High German was basically invented so that Germans could understand each other. The most northern Germans speak "Plattdeutsch" which is actually more like English then German ... As an European you are constantly forced to deal with different cultures and localities within a few kilometers of space (good example is switzerland, which has a german part, an french one and an italien one - Swiss are often trilingual). Sure - american cities have chinese, jewish, spanish areas ... but you are still in the US ... Another big difference between the US and Europa is the constant presence of signs of war ... many wars. Old castles, memorials, statues of generals, kings, battles and whatever are a constant reminder of Europa's bloody history. It's not just the second world war that's still visible ... Europe is also trying to digest it's colonial history. Britain and France especially have to cope with many immigrants from former colonies. In some way many europeans feel guilty about their ancestors ignorance, greed and stupidity - they are not keen to rule or conquer again by force. The British are still trying to cope that they have won the big war, but lost they status as an empire. The French just switched - and try now to civilize Europe. Do we Europeans really want to feel as one ... or even identify as the Europeans. I don't think so. We don't want to be united in some way - we just want to dissolve the differences between the laws and rule of conduct between our nation states, because they are contructions of the past. Instead of becoming the same - we want to explore our differences. That's why an more "european" Britain means local governments in Wales and Scottland etc. orangeguru   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Give it time...   by wicked_sprite       at Mon 14 Oct 2:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     I have many relatives from Eastern Europe / Mediterranean and we've had many conversations about my heritage versus my birth country (being born in Chi-Town, United States). The U.S. is only about 250 years old. Especially considering the types of religious and economic battles the U.S. is now also waging, I doubt our history will be that far off from our older, perhaps more wiser at least for the wear, world brethren. We are still a nation in our infancy. Our size and world power may point to other conclusions, but our actions will always betray us. I am very proud for the ideals this nation stands for, but our actions will not always follow those ideals. I think this is true for just about every nation out there though. My question, am I just being naive?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  What constitutes American identity?   by slaphappy       at Sun 13 Oct 11:19pm score of 2 brilliant     In Rhode Island, which is about the size of the parkinglot of the Mall of America, there are no fewer than four regional accents, three ways to prepare "Johnny Cakes" (from the original "Journey Cakes", only mangled by aforementioned accents until the "R" is only documented in the earliest histories.) A person from Provincetown, MA is immersed in a culture utterly unlike that of a Bostonian... nevermind someone from New Orleans or Seattle or Demoines, Iowa. What does it mean to be an American? Despite the constant harping about the Great American Monoculture, depending on where you were raised, you will have a radically different outlook on life from someone three hundred miles away... or less, if you live in New England or worse, New York City. American cultural unity is a myth, and always has been. Yes, we watch the same TV shows and movies, and yes there's a McDonalds in every state capital (except for Vermont and Alaska. Ooops.) That's just the glitzy surface of America... the roots go much, much deeper and in different directions. Europe, with a history thousands of years in the making, will never be able to present a single face to the rest of the world. Therefore, any definition of "European", like "American", will have to include the concept of cultural pluralism based on shared ideals. slap*happy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

61.  Re: What constitutes American identity?   by chancehunter       at Mon 14 Oct 11:49am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 26     I agree that American cultural unity is largely a myth, that regionalism have survived the monocultural assault of the mass media the last half century or so. Depending on how mass media trends go, regional identity could end up reasserting itself as the more dominant cultural force. However, American monoculture is real. It exists wherever tract housing was laid out in the years since WWII, and in cities that aren't much more than a century old. Communities without deep roots often know little but the monoculture. Making Chutney. One part facial hair. Two parts moxy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Gotta love that next-to-last line   by Brian Jones       at Mon 14 Oct 2:22am score of 1     The young believe that aggression is simply bad. And people say Americans are the simplistic ones. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

90.  Re: Gotta love that next-to-last line   by lucas_m       at Tue 15 Oct 7:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     That line only says A.S. Byatt is a simplistic one. Moi, j'aime ricocher.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Being a European.   by Sarcastig       at Mon 14 Oct 3:43am score of 1.5 interesting     The Netherlands are a very small country, with only 16 million inhabitants, yet there are 7 or 8 major dialects, and people have a strong sense of local identity: the people from Amsterdam don't like those from The Hague, and the people in the west of the country look down on "the farmers" in the east and the "almost-belgians" in the south. Nonetheless, dutch people will define themselves as dutch first and foremost. I have lived in France a long time, and the differences between France and the Netherlands can be huge. French people dislike dutch oppenness/bluntness, and most dutch think the French are perverted and overly formal. A lot of dutch people, when going camping in France, bring their own potatoes, because they don't like the french ones. Yet, put a frenchman and a dutchman together with an American, and you'll see them form a unit of Europeans. I feel European. I pay in Euro's, I speak 3 european languages (dutch, french and english) fluently, and I feel European history is also mine. My old history teacher still holds a grudge against the people from Amsterdam because they helped the Spanish against Haarlem (my teachers city) In the 17th century. The French still dislike the English because they were at war several times long ago. But this doesn't mean that my history teacher doesn't feel dutch, or that french and english people can't feel European. I don't think Europe will ever be a united nation as the USA. And I think that's a good thing: I hope my children will never have to pledge allegiance to the European flag, and I hope there will never be one person who has power over all of Europe. But I do think Europe can collaborate, become more of a unit, to offer a counterweight to the United States' seemingly unlimited power. Hedwig "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" - Oscar Wilde -   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  A young country   by Petronius       at Mon 14 Oct 6:02am score of 1.5 interesting     All this talk about a "European" identity seems a bit silly when the whole process is just a few years old. I would submit that the widely recognized "American" identity was a process that took more than a century to develop. For example, Gen. Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union forces at the beginning of the American Civil War, but he felt more loyalty to the state of Virginia than to the United States itself. Such a sentiment is now wholly extinct from the American psyche. It took many years and the crushing of the Confederacy to kill it off. Similarly, look at poor Yugoslavia. After more than 3 generations of confederation (albeit under radically different governments) it tore itself apart over ethnic differences that are completely incomprehensible to outsiders. Although I largely blame the cruel ambitions of the apparatchiks who ran the country, it is obvious that a combined national identity never quite jelled for them, otherwise the various Slobos would have gotten nowhere. Perhaps someday Pan-European identity will arise. I suspect its content will surprise us all. Maybe the defining crisis will come, as it did for the USA, when somebody wants to leave. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

62.  Comparing Apples and Fruit Baskets   by phalkon       at Mon 14 Oct 12:07pm score of 1     For some reason, the author and the rest of us are determined to compare an economic union of 15 individual countries with one country, the United States. While there are valid comparisons to make (geographical size, population size) the aspects that the author focuses on are social and to a lesser extent economic. I don't really find it surprising that many of the Europeans quoted in the article think of themselves as French or Danish or Spanish first and European second. I suspect a similar sampling of U.S. citizens would find that they think of themselves as Americans first and North Americans second, if at all.       I do think that there are some obvious differences between the American perspective and the European one. One reason for this may be that Europe is comprised of several unique countries that are generally much smaller than the U.S. Each country has its own laws, languages and customs. Since the countries are smaller and less isolated than the U.S., Europeans come into contact with foreign cultures much more often than your average American does. This may be a basis for a greater understanding of other cultures among Europeans than among Americans. (But surely someone will cite neo-Nazis and football hooligans as counterexamples). Along with the view of the U.S. as the great Other, this could make for some commonalities among Europeans that aren't shared among Mexicans, Canadians, Americans, Jamaicans, etc.       But that does not make being European a nationality. While the European Union does say it is striving for European citizenship and social progress (a europa.eu.int link), I submit that the EU is better measured by its progress on economic issues such as free trade and common currency. Yes, European countries have many other issues to discuss and the EU is probably a good forum for that. But just as NAFTA didn't make Americans think of themselves as citizens of the North American continent first, the existence of the Euro isn't going to wipe out national pride in Italy or Belgium either.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

74.  Anyone else notice   by This Eloquent Fool       at Mon 14 Oct 5:21pm score of 1     that 'European' is the only word that starts with a vowel that receives 'a' instead of 'an'. try and say 'An European'. Doesn't work, does it? I wonder why....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

76.  Re: Anyone else notice   by emperorpenguin       at Mon 14 Oct 7:07pm score of 1.5 witty   in reply to comment 74     that 'European' is the only word that starts with a vowel that receives 'a' instead of 'an'. Yeah, it's unusual, but I don't think it's a unique case. everything moves real slow when it's forty below   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: Anyone else notice   by mad_clown       at Mon 14 Oct 7:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 74     It probably has a lot to do with the way the hard "Eu" is pronounced as a "Y". Most words beginning with "Y" are prefixed by "a" rather than "an." For example: "A Yellow cab" "A yak." "A Yapping dog." "A European" "A euphoric feeling," etc. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

86.  The idea of European Unity is a myth   by chatsubo       at Tue 15 Oct 2:38am score of 1     The Scots hate the English, who hate the French, who can't stand the Germans, who don't like the Poles, who resent the Russians. And everyone makes fun of the Italians. Which is why the EU is such a great idea. The only way to stop another European war is to tie us all in to a economic web of inter-dependency. But please don't force us to pretend that we are all one big happy Euro-Disney family. That's strictly for Americans. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

87.  Je suis un vrai bordel   by noggy       at Tue 15 Oct 4:56am score of 1     It is important not to confuse Europe with the EU (which, admittedly, is what Byatt's article does throughout). 'Europe' as a cultural phenomenon - defined first against an advancing Islam and now against an advancing US - is much wider and complex than the EU, which is an international organisation with enough rules, standards and procedures to crowd out even the most ardent vision of a European cultural unity. The cultural unity is there, however. Mainly in the 85% (to pick up a good argument) that defines "the West" and even if it manifests itself mostly in the 15% that differentiates us from our US cousins. Among other things, this includes: - a broad belief in strong government (probably a historical legacy, resulting from the mainly beneficial role of the state in redressing the economic imbalances of feudalism), - a 'kantian' view for the world (possibly based on the above and the experience of building the EU and because laws are cheaper to make than missiles), - a love for cultural pretension (which is just a manifestation of our grudging recognition of the other 85%. Makes us feel better, although, since the US created the Simpsons, all is now forgiven) There is a wonderful film doing the rounds over here called "L'auberge espagnol" (the Spanish Inn. Sorry, no link in English) which follows one year in the life of a bunch of European exchange students sharing a flat in Barcelona. The film (in French, English, Spanish, Catalan and Danish at the same time) ends with a wonderful sentence by the French protagonist reflecting on his new friends, what he has become and what he now knows about himself. It goes: "Tout me paraît clair. Je suis lui, lui, et lui, je suis elle... Je suis comme l'Europe, je suis tout ça. Je suis un vrai bordel" (Everything is suddenly clear. I am him, him, and him, I am her... I am like Europe, I am all that. I am a fucking mess". So yes, there is a European identity forming (slowly and initially only among the mobile elites and the travelling young, like most national identities maybe). Like most identities over here, it is fragmented, schizophrenic and very different depending on where you look at it from. This might not fit in with general definitions of "national identity", but it's a bit like being British if you're Welsh, Spanish if you're Catalan, German if you're Bavarian, Belgian if you're Bruxellois, Italian if you're Milanese, etc... None of these identities resemble the same experience seen from a different regional angle. this will never do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]