Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you. The only connection strong enough to hold people together is national identity. And that's where UE is failing. The UE is not and will never be a nation in spite of repeated efforts at breaking nationalities to build a new continental identity. At the end of the day each country only pushes for its own interests. It was very much the same situation in the USSR and it failed. The UE is failing in that aspect too. The UE is a liberal diktat.
No, the USSR was more similar to the US in this respect - i.e. the "main culture" (British in case of the US and Russian in case of the USSR) that served as a cultural basis for each respective country.
This aspect is absent in E.U, because quite a few "leading" cultures coexist side by side there, and can't serve as a "common ground" for anyone else.
Hence Soviet Union was cultural/political/economic union, ( and so is the US,) where the EU really serves only economic/political purpose.
No, the USSR was more similar to the US in this respect - i.e. the "main culture" (British in case of the US and Russian in case of the USSR) that served as a cultural basis for each respective country.
This aspect is absent in E.U, because quite a few "leading" cultures coexist side by side there, and can't serve as a "common ground" for anyone else.
Hence Soviet Union was cultural/political/economic union, ( and so is the US,) where the EU really serves only economic/political purpose.
This idea that the US's culture is molded after the English's culture is largely outdated. From Los Angeles to Miami English is very much a foreign language and WASPs only exists in tv shows. The US is a franchised-country and can't really be compared to European countries anyways.
The USSR had that "russification" process pushed on occupied population, that is the main difference between the 2. For the all the rest it is the same: centralized power controlled by one republic, civil servants that are appointed rather than elected. First and foremost, though is claims to be peace keeping, the UE is based on a domination relationship.
This idea that the US's culture is molded after the English's culture is largely outdated. From Los Angeles to Miami English is very much a foreign language and WASPs only exists in tv shows. The US is a franchised-country and can't really be compared to European countries anyways.
Ideas can't be "outdated" because they are not "popular" any longer, or because they are not "cool" or because they are not "politically correct." It's all wishful thinking. Even if Los Angeles and Miami don't speak English, it's really irrelevant. Both still operate under American laws, and the basis for all these laws still goes back to the very foundation of this country, laid out by the English. No, the US culture is not exactly "molded after English culture," but the "handwriting" is unmistakable, Miami or not.
Quote:
The USSR had that "russification" process pushed on occupied population, that is the main difference between the 2.
In the same manner you can say that "anglization" has been pushed on the "occupied population" in the US - namely Indians, and since the cultures were too incompatible, one had to be eliminated all together.
Not a case with Russia, which culturally was much closer to many "occupied populations," and that's the reason why they could co-exist and blend together up to a certain degree.
Quote:
For the all the rest it is the same: centralized power controlled by one republic, civil servants that are appointed rather than elected. First and foremost, though is claims to be peace keeping, the UE is based on a domination relationship.
What "domination?" Who is dominating there, and for what reasons?
I think anyone who feels the E.U is a failed experiment needs to look eastwards - at India. It's very similar to the E.U, with constituent states that differ linguistically, politically, economically and culturally. Yet they manage to stay together as a country. They too suffer terrorist attacks bigger than those in the E.U and illegal immigration of so-called refugees (mostly from Bangladesh, and a few from Myanmar and Afghanistan). So how are they holding together? Because of a strong sense of national identity.
There was recently an article about this in the Economist.
One of the driving ideas behind the current EU is procedural democracy. Respect for the law, institutions and formal rules rather than a strong sense of identity or values. It's not easy to say what this shared identity should be about after all, apart from liberal democracy. What does Sicily have in common with Sweden, for instance? Still, it's mind-boggling that the Euro banknotes only have generic images of architectural styles and bridges on them... one would probably expect something different on the continent of Socrates, Leonardo, Voltaire, Goethe, Cervantes etc. It's as if Europe feared its history, or saw it as an endless source of conflicts at the very least, and decided to play it safe, maybe too safe.
France, Germany, Russian Empire (and Russian Federation now), other countries have successfully solved this problem.
Exactly. For example you can be a proud Bavarian and German AND European.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
