Pan-Asia - symmetry for symmetry's sake?

Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by Homusubi, Nov 10, 2014.

  1. Jacozilla

    Jacozilla Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    209
    I think you misunderstood my reply, because that's precisely what I was trying to say, that a local geopolitical entity is a distinct country even if half a world away some other leading country had no idea that other world away country existed.

    I should have been more precise and added a word to "recognition as a sovereign state by other [local] leading sovereign states"

    I did try to make that point by saying thats why when looking at a recognized countries map of the 14/15th century, you'd have to look at one "adjusted by modern historical hindsight" because as in the for example I gave (e.g. Spain), if all you did was look at an actual historical map from the actual period, then many countries would be excluded because most maps from that period were highly localized (e.g. no real idea of geopolitical entities outside of their sphere of knowledge)

    And I agree that whether we use 15th century definition or modern, one commonality is recognition as a sovereign state by other leading sovereign states, at minimum I should have said locally, much more concrete if more global but not needed. Control or issuing of currency, exertion of dominant influence within the claimed sovereign borders, etc are also some reasonable standards.

    By these definitions, while you could choose to extremely broadly interpret and say any small village not owing fealty to a greater unit of social organization, or a tribal level entity was a "country", I would submit that is not by my and I think most people's standard of what a country or sovereign state is (back then or now)

    I will answer here the question posed previous to this - I would suspect as a bait question - how many countries did I think existed in North America in 1500?

    By then dominant 14/15th century standards, the answer would be 1 - the Seven Iroquois Nations.
    e.g. by recognized standards of a sovereign state at that time to codify laws in writing, issue currency, control claimed borders, conduct foreign affairs and/or be recognized by other sovereign states, etc

    The Seven Iroquois Nations, hundreds of years before the first white settlers arrived, formed this unique alliance that broke out from mere tribal organization to what any but the most jingoistic person would have to admit was a country. They codified laws in writing, formulated, wrote, and enforced within their Nations borders the first constitution of North America - which was not as many think by the USA. You can google the exact year but before settlers arrived, the Seven Iroquois Nations codified this constitution called something like the Great Law of Peace. The important point being they codified and enforced an organizational system of law above that of a single tribal or related family unit.

    By MORAL standards - the answer would obviously (I hope) be as many countries as there were native american tribes. Each were distant entities owing allegiance to no one other than perhaps whatever spiritual focus each tribe may or may not have had. However, without being semantic about it and just argue for the sake of arguing, they were not countries.

    The Seven Iroquois Nations was by then and today's definition a country - they were recognized by several european countries and conducted foreign affairs while the american colonies were still colonies.

    In fact, that's where the word and our practice in some states to hold political "caucuses" comes from, the Seven Iroquois Nations. They held caucuses as a form of representational government.

    That said, they are the only exception I know of in North America, in 1500, that was a country. The rest were tribes. Now later, Chief Joseph of the Sioux, would notably also formulate laws and be a country by modern standards (but not recognized as such at the time due to whole manifest destiny period of American history) - so I would count he and a half dozen other tribes that rose to the level of countries post-USA formation.

    Before someone throws that stone - did that make native americans inferior human beings on a moral sense? No. But aside from very few exceptions, they weren't countries nor sovereign states.
     
  2. Velasti

    Velasti Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    You need to pay more attention to world geopolitics.

    In 2007, South America signed the Cochabamba Declaration, the idea of forming the EU in South America.

    As far as the U.S. of America is concerned, they have "lost South America". Because while South America were divided, they could be picked off one by one. That can't happen when they're cooperating, which means all of the american backed paramilitaries aren't as potent.

    Look at Japans position - it's not in a good geographic location to be directly opposed to the rest of the region. Think about the implication of the name American RECLAMATION Corporation.


    Also ignore the emotions that the two populations feel for one another. China and Japan are the world's largest trading partners. China has largely become an assembly plant for the region. Take global politics at face value and you miss the nuances of what is really going on. Doublethink is a necessity.

    The USA betrayed China in the late 1940s/early 1950s. If Japan became part of ARC, Japan would be a short hop, skip and a jump from mainland China. It would be complete suicide. The American-Japan alliance is completely unnatural. The current behaviour is because Japan is lead by a nationalist government who are being hostile not just to China, but also to the USA.

    The Japanese are just in a weak position, and it makes no sense for them not to be part of the Slavic Federation, PAC, Polystralia or ARC.

    To be honest, it's highly doubtful that the Japanese would find the Polystralian region on their side. The Japanese atrocities to the Chinese are remembered by us, the war in the Pacific was our main involvement in the war. An ultra-Nationalist Japanese government would find itself very isolated.
     
  3. Velasti

    Velasti Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    This is because of a very specific problem with neoliberal economic policy imposed by the ECB, IMF and the Commission.

    As Thomas Jefferson said, banks are more dangerous than standing armies.

    Seriously, the government has to wake up to the fact that neoliberal economic policies are completely insane.
     
  4. DST1348

    DST1348 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    70 years ago France and Germany were utter enemies (Erbfeindschaft), which changed drastically after WWII. I find it believable that similar things happen after a "Great Mistake" elsewhere too.
     
  5. LoneRebel

    LoneRebel Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,318
    Location:
    Distinguished and Ever Loyal City
    When you say "opposed to the rest of the region", you really just mean "opposed to China", don't you?

    To say the US "betrayed" China is utterly bizarre. I have no idea what this refers to.

    And to say the current Japanese government is hostile to the USA is wrong, just wrong. If anything, the current government wants to strengthen the US-Japan alliance. Please don't make stuff up.

    Weak position? Japan is still the third largest economy in the world; it isn't some tiny powerless third world country. But yes, Japan should have been part of Polystralia, it would make more sense.

    And Polystralia? You mean the Polystralia that is made up of Australia and maritime Southeast Asia, right? The same countries that are currently seeking allies to contain Chinese expansionism? As a native of the "Polystralian region", let me inform you that it is China that is becoming very isolated.
     
  6. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,403
    I don't think written laws or currency has anything to do with it.

    What matters is political control. I WOULD count a village/tribe that didn't owe fealty to someone else as evidence of greater fracturing/less unity in those times than currently.

    The fact that the village/tribe wasn't significant to its neighbors is part of the point.
    As technology improves (including techs like currency and laws, but also trade and guns) it becomes easier to unify (ie destroy and replace) separate political entities.

    This unification is Not a one way process and it doesn't continue indefinitely to some 'government of all humanity'. But it Has overall occurred over the past few thousand years.

    (And if you don't count the little independent village/tribe, I see no reason why all ghose post-WWII countries which only exist because the major powers let them should count either)
     
  7. m15a

    m15a Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    My question was only 80% a bait question. I was also curious how one would count such a thing. Anyway, I wasn't trying to bait anyone into saying anything offensive - just trying to get at what could be debatable in the definition of a country.

    I'm not a historian but, from the name, it seems like the 7 Nations was considered to be 7 separate nations (i.e., each tribe being a nation) before unifying. Also, it looks like they were separate in 1500 and then decided to unify - and not because one group conquered all the others.
     
  8. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,403
    Most maps I've seen have these vast gray areas 'independent kingdoms and tribes'
    I'd put 1500 N America at a few hundred (somewhat lower for Afrca)...and probably a few hundrd for Australia too. (A lot in Japan...etc.)
     
  9. Velasti

    Velasti Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Have you forgotten the Japanese Nationalist warcrimes? Have you forgotten the threats Japan made during WW2 towards "Polystralia"? Have you forgotten the brutality with which the Japanese subjugated the people of China?

    The South Koreans are also concerned.

    This refers to the 4 Allies of WW2 - the USA, the UK, Russia, and China. China held the line in the Pacific, they gave the US enough time to win in Europe and then transfer forces over to the Pacific theatre of war. They also prevented the Japanese from bringing its full military power to bear on the rest of the region. The US of course, in their unjustified fear of communism, made their WW2 ally into public enemy number 2, and struck them from the history books.

    The current Japanese prime minister has celebrated Japanese war criminals as being martyrs.

    I don't know if you have read Empire of the Sun, but the Japanese were not martyrs in WW2. I should also point out that those war criminals acted against citizens of Britain. That action was an insult to the USA and the people of the Pacific, just as much as it was to China.

    You are also allowing your biases towards China to get the better of you. China are not communist, they're most certainly a capitalist country. They've completely changed economic policy over the past 50 years.

    http://www.alternet.org/activism/7-brilliant-insights-noam-chomsky-american-empire
    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...rld/noam-chomsky-truth-to-power/#.VGiEIPmUebM
    As a native of the polystralian region, China's behaviour is due solely to the aggression of the Japanese and the USA towards China, and you'd be well to remember that fact.

    In particular:

    The US is the far bigger threat to the democratic countries of Polystralia, because our fear of America's nukes mean we have been, and continue to be, guilty accomplices to America's behaviour.

    Example of this - Saudi Arabia beheaded 19 people in the past month. The drones from the USA aren't bombing Saudi, are they? Britain and the USA are fully supportive of the Saudi dicatorship, because it suits their foreign interests. And we can't do anything about it except play nicely, because the alternative is invasion.
     
  10. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,936
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rural Vermont
    Moderator Action: This thread has wandered a bit too deeply into discussion of current geo-political events and positions and the makings of the post-WWII world. The setting for the game is 200-600 years in the future, so speculation about how the current world might morph into the game's future (and whether that future is realistically conceived) is OK, but if you want to discuss current world events or international relations or 20th/21st century history that led to the world we see today, please take it to the Off-Topic or World History forums.
     

Share This Page