On Europe

[Mikey]

It just seems like such a sad way to lead a life. to just hate everything to save disappointment. I don't know, perhaps I am an idealist or just live in more pleasant environment.

IDK, I think the problem is more narrow than that. To continuously conflate "disagrees with me" with "lying or dishonest" means a very insular life in the long run. But, it's not my life so I can't really tell someone else how to live it.

[Deepcrush]

Oh for fuck sake, I never said "disagree = lying". Could you more pathetic... seriously...

[Giuseppe]

Do threads usually go off-topic like this? Just asking so I know what to expect

Going back to the European issue, I've seen much of the debate was about how the British think of themselves - as in not being European. And how culturally they're too different to be called that way. I believe the point was already made: it's not as if the whole of continental Europe has any sort of common cultural or social identity, although I don't see the British as being that homogeneous either; I differentiate between English and Scottish for example. As a Romanian I think I have as little or as much in common with the British as I do with the Finns, the French or the Poles. I only think of myself as European if I refer to my geographical location or the fact that somewhere it says I'm a citizen of the European Union.

This being said I do believe that the cultural and social exchanges that have been going on in Europe for... well for most of its existence between the various peoples and nations has led to a certain interconnection between most, if not all, the states that belong to this region. From this perspective, when you get down to basics I do believe that most of the core social and cultural values are either the same or very similar. This, however, doesn't justify using European in any meaningful cultural or social way. It's even less justified to use this term in a political way. While most countries are a part of the EU, many are not and some wouldn't even want to be; and I'm not even talking about the people, but their leaders and their traditional approach to "Europe". If you look at the EU itself, there's not that much political unity there either. Besides... Greece has got me worried; what happened there is as much the fault of their own leaders as it is the fault of the EU. And now they're basically trying to buy them out of their debt. I remember a slogan that was popular some ways back here in Romania: we're not selling our country. Well... we kinda did that; but scale of what's going to happen to Greece makes me shudder.

[Griffin]

Do threads usually go off-topic like this? Just asking so I know what to expect

To simply say yes would be an understatement.

[Reliant121]

It is known as TR-116ing or a TR-116 effect, named after a famous early debate of this site which turned into a multi-page threat derailment.

[Mikey]

You echo very clearly my own sentiments on the matter of continental Europe not being a single national indentity. In fact, even in your own country's history (for example) one could quite clearly see the disparities between the Romany, the Moldovans (enough that they ended up with their own bit of land and vodka distilleries,) the Polovtsians, etc. To cite a "European" culture would be tantamount to citing a single African culture.

[Giuseppe]

Well being on the subject of Romanians (I imagine it is a change of pace for you septics and... "limey bastards" was it? ), I can only speak about our history as I know it and understand it. The views of others regarding us tend to vary quite broadly. Just ask a Hungarian or a Russian what he thinks of us

I just started writing and soon realized I was getting into too many details and I'm not sure how interesting that would've been. Suffice to say that Romanians have two major contributors to what they are today from an ethnic point of view: Dacia (Dacians are a branch of ancient Thrace) and the Roman Empire. We have many other cultural influences, with various regions having different influences: Slavic, Hungarian, German, Romani (Gypsy), Turkish, French etc. This means each region has a slightly different culture, with German elements more abundant in Trasnylvania, Slavic elements more common in Moldavia or Greek and Turkish elements in Wallachia and especially Dobrudja. Bucharest architecture, that which wasn't destroyed during communism, has strong French and Italian influence, but also medieval structures can be a mix of Byzantine and Gothic elements. The language is mostly Latin in origin (about 3/4), but with an important Slavic element. Even more significant is the fact that there are over 1,5 million Hungarians living here and over half a million Gypsies/Romani in a country of 22 million. Add to that Turkish, Tatar, Russian, Serbian, Czech, Slovak, German or Jewish communities in various regions of the country.

Moldova (the country) is an interesting place. My personal view on it is that their identity was well and truly hijacked during the Soviet occupation. Add to that a high proportion of Slavs in the country (about 40% are Russian and Ukrainian), it's easy to see how most Moldovans wouldn't even consider themselves Romanian.

I just realized that once more I may have delved too much into details. The bottom line: you have one, relatively small country, and yet there are so many subtle differences from region to region. What does that say about the "homogeneity" of European culture?

P.S. Even I'm not homogeneous... a quarter Hungarian.

[Deepcrush]

I'm still confused, who ever said that "Europeans are a homogeneous group"?

Its been the main issue coming from the Europeans in this thread. "We're not the same, we're not the same" but no one has called you all the same. Just that you're a part of the continent of Europe.

[Giuseppe]

I was actually replying to the aversion of the British towards being regarded as "Europeans" as if continental Europe is some sort of cultural and social entity that they shouldn't be included in. The whole discussion regarding measuring systems was quite funny, as if that has any bearing on how "European" you are.

[Graham Kennedy]

Perhaps it's something people can't get if they haven't lived here. Offhand I can't recall a single time when I've heard "European" used in anything but a political/cultural context. You only ever hear the word used in things like European courts, European laws, the European parliament, European ideals, will there be a European army, who should join the European union, we should have the European flag on this or that, blah blah. To those of us who think the whole thing is a crock, it gets annoying.

[Giuseppe]

It's funny a bit. I hear those things here too, obviously in my own language, but somehow it never made feel neither more, nor less European than I already was. One thing that did annoy me was back when we were "negotiating" to get into the EU and there was this trend of saying "we must complete the European integration process", "we must get into Europe"... every time I found myself thinking: you morons, we already are in Europe

But I have a feeling that the aversion for the EU is getting mixed up with the concept of being European, as in being of the continent of Europe, with all the intricate cultural connections there of.

[Graham Kennedy]

But I have a feeling that the aversion for the EU is getting mixed up with the concept of being European, as in being of the continent of Europe, with all the intricate cultural connections there of.

That's the point. The word means different things to different people.

[Mikey]

I certainly understand the distaste with which many Brits and Irish may regard the absorptive behemoth which the EU seems intent on becoming. But wouldn't a conscious effort to reclaim the actual definition of the word "European" help amend that, at least colloquially?

[alexmann]

Am I the only English person that refuses to use imperial unless I absolutely have to? I automatically convert imperial to metric in my head. For example, an object travelling at 10mph becomes 16kmph.

[Captain Seafort]

Am I the only English person that refuses to use imperial unless I absolutely have to?

Probably. The problem with the metric system, as useful as it is when you're doing sums, is that it produces a lot of its numbers that are either too high or too low for everyday use. Feet and inches are more useable on a human scale than metres and centimetres, pounds and ounces more so than grams. The only problem comes with statute miles, which are large enough to be as useless as kilometres, and both are inferior to nautical miles. They'd be the logical unit to use for large distances.